People want to know things like definitions for certain. That is an admirable desire on high importance topics like blessed and holy. The problem is that the same people don't know how to get there. The same people who want certainty also can get trapped in wavering rather than knowing. Knowing the meanings of blessed and holy for certain, as found in Genesis 2:1-3, requires something that most lexicons and scholars don't provide. They don't test the meanings of these words from inside the text.
Instead, they test the meaning of each word from outside the text. They use etymology (in some instances when they claim they don't) or they use cognate languages (these are languages like French in relation to English). I don't think that either one of these tests is very valid or certain. If you want reasonable certainty on a very important set of topics, then a lexicon or reading another 100 scholars won't get you there. The way to know something for certain over another possibility is to test what is true and humble versus what is false and proud. But it has to be a complete test. So how do we get to a better place and time, where and when we know for certain the meaning of blessed and holy? I got an answer for that. Read on.
I think the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18 shows how to get past various the many opinions on the meanings of blessed and holy. I'm going to present the story in the following format of questions:
1) What are the numbers? (to form judgments) (i.e. must be)
2) What is the test? (to form testimonies) (i.e. will be)
3) What are complete guidelines? (to form laws) (i.e. wants to be)
4) What is the action? (to form commandments) (i.e. can be)
5) What is the thing? (to form statutes) (i.e. let be)
Before I continue let me present the major opinions I think are worth considering on the definition (one of three kinds of meaning) of holy:
1) "set apart" (by far the most popular in the last 100 years, but not previously)
2) "pure" (made popular in groups like the Puritans, but that is no surprise)
3) "moral wholeness" (the most popular of the last 500 years in Protestant theology)
I believe the latter wins after a thorough testing and experimentation. But for the testing to be successful there must be many testifiers, not just many experiments. Too many times we think of them as the same thing. Read on and see the difference.
What are the numbers? Let me stack up the numbers for you first. Do you remember the story of Elijah? He asks the people for a test. He asks for a time out. He says, "How long will you continue to waver between two opinions?" The people like his idea for ending their wavering. So here is how it went #s wise.
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) 2 opinions, 1 opinion
2) 400 reps/prophets of Baal, 1 rep/prophet for Yahweh (Elijah)
3) 1 altar for Baal, 1 altar for Elijah
4) the whole community assembled as testers/witnesses, the whole community assembled as testers/witnesses
5) Only fire from heaven, only fire from heaven.
6) many slashings leading to bleeding, not even one slashing
7) 0 gallons of water, excess gallons of water
8) Very dry wood, very wet wood
I think you can tell that Elijah is not even worried about the odds being stacked against him in this test. He knows there are two options: 1) a guaranteed decline or failure, which is why he makes fun of them, and 2) an uncertain possibility, which he believes will test out just fine.
I likewise am not at all bothered by the numbers. The number of lexicons means little to nothing, if they all are just Xerox copies of each other. The answers that lexicons, dictionaries, word studies, newer scholarship, older scholarship, and church leaders give wavers between opinions.
So what is the test? Let me stack up the test for you. The test is what will be your opinion here and now. Notice that Elijah is not willing to deal with further procrastination on their part. Their desire to avoid the topic in the here and now is seen in his primary question: "How long will you waver between two opinions?"
Here is my breakdown on the place and time:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) at present they go to worship Baal and Yahweh, Elijah wants them to go to worship only Yahweh,
2) they have perhaps in even the same building worship to each, Elijah wants them to have separate worship,
3) they want to continue waiting, Elijah wants the waiting to stop,
4) they have put off agreeing to test each view at a place and time, Elijah asks them for a test at a place and time - a here and now test (very shortly)
5) they have gotten comfortable with their uncertainty (wavering), Elijah wants them to rid themselves of their uncertainty (He wants them to say: "As for me and my house we will serve Yahweh".
6) apparently they have been putting the place of decision off for a long time, Elijah wants the time out to end so they can get back to action,
7) procrastination, urgency
8) traveling from place to place, finding their place
What Elijah asked for and what he got from the people was a test. That is all he needed from the witnesses. He needed one agreed upon place and time when they could all testify to the results. He alone as a witness was not enough. He wanted maximum testing or witnessing. They made a covenant or bond with Elijah that they would be witnesses to a test. It is no test to hear the testimony of only one witness. That is all that I am. He did not give them any guarantees except that he would be present, when Yahweh proved who he was. They agreed to the same place and time as Elijah and they did not require certainty from him in advance, but rather they sought certainty after the test where they were present to testify. Maybe their wavering was directly a result of their desire to have guarantees in advance, rather than waiting for til the time that they could testify to guarantee what was true and humble.
The difficulty in the present, especially regarding holy's definition is that the tests are quasi-tests. The are not tests that give you a great deal of certainty. In fact, as scholars have assessed the definition of holy more recently, the tests are coming back more uncertain than previously. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (the grandest work on the Hebrew language) casts serious doubt on the etymological argument for "set apart". It also made the courageous step of leaving out cognate (other language) material and relying primarily on the Hebrew language internally.
I am afraid that the one test of blessed and holy has not really been performed up to here and now standards. Since James Barr, no one has written a full blown test for the definition of holy after he successfully unseated the argument from etymology alone. (He did not say it has no value, but he does say its value is limited.) That is what I am trying to do otherwise in this blog and in an upcoming book. I want to set the stage for a grand test of definitions of blessed and holy. .
So what is complete? What is complete is playing by all the laws.
I think the laws for Elijah and the prophets might have been something like this:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) no stranger fire other than from heaven, no strange fire other than from heaven,
2) Prayers are permitted, prayers are permitted
3) We can play with up to 400 players against Elijah by himself, I will permit them to have 400 as long as I can play
4) bleeding and slashing is permitted, heckling is permitted without any need for physical violence
5) There is no requirement to use green or wet wood, wet wood will be used that goes beyond required
6) Baal gets to go first based on the "coin toss", Elijah will go second based on the same "coin toss"
7) The contest will continue until a side gets the result of a fire. Elijah continues until fire arrives
8) If Baal wins then everyone is to go with him, if Yahweh wins then everyone is to go with him
What is the action? What is the action is the experiment.
I think the rules for Elijah the prophets of Baal and the crowd of spectators were these:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) no matches were allowed (that is cheating), no matches were allowed (that is cheating)
2) each side was to set up their own altar, each side was to set up their own altar
3) each side was to ask their god to send fire from heaven, each side was to ask their god to send fire from heaven
4) the action of the people of Israel was to be witnesses, the action of the people was to be witnesses
5) neither side could sell money back guarantees in advance, neither side could sell money back guarantees
6) the guarantee came after the experiment, the guarantee came after the experiment
7) certainty would come from knowing the results following the experiment, certainty would come from knowing the results after the experiment,
8) prayers and blood-letting allowed, prayers allowed but no blood-letting except from animals
To sum it up, it is to set up an experiment and perform it. To be specific about the definitions of blessed an holy, I have only given a rough sketch of the experiment mainly for the definition of holy. I still have a lot of writing to do and a lot of writing that is not on my blog yet. I have thought it all through in my own mind and I already know the outcome for me personally. But that does not mean there are many testimonies to that definition.
I knew holy's definition with certainty and personally back in November 2013. Before that time, mainly the last 10 years, I knew through experimenting that there were lots of problems with the etymological argument arriving at "set apart" as the definition (one of three kinds of meaning). I also knew that in the last 500 years that the Christian church and even the Jewish synagogue are divided on its meaning. My question is a lot like Elijah's: "Why are satisfied with procrastinating between so many opinions?" So I have begun the experiment that people can give witness to on-line. I want witnesses. I am not doing this in the dark somewhere. I am doing it in the light of everywhere and at hyper-speed. These are the twin advantages of the internet.
Let me illustrate the importance of experimenting and not just guessing in our brains. This is how I used experimenting just this morning (5/19/14). .
So this morning, I did not know where my coffee or tea cup had disappeared to. Rather than waver too long as to where it might be, I started out by experimenting with where it might be. I had a few opinions in my mind. I experimented first with the location of the passenger's side seat in my car. I seemed to recall that the solution to this mystery had some connection with my car. Well, it wasn't there. Then I decided, let's re-check the kitchen looking in the open at the counter space and then in the cupboard. I didn't find it there either. Then I checked the other lower probability rooms.like the living room, etc. Still, no success. Then upon returning to the kitchen, I spotted where it was most likely hidden. I noticed that I had not emptied my lunch container from the day before. Than I recalled also that there was something I had placed in there the day before that was unusual for me. It was then that I opened the packet and there it was! I found in truth where my cup was located and I also have to admit humbly that I did not know were it was with certainty until that moment. No mental experiment was as good as finishing the experiment by opening the bag.
The problem is that too many people rely on their minds and not on their souls. They think of knowledge as something that is mind-based rather than relationship-based. I now realize for myself more than ever that knowledge in the Bible makes a lot more sense as a term of intimacy as one of my professors once called it. I think his idea leans in the right direction. Where and when will we be? That is where and when we shall know. No elsewhere and not any time before.
I also found my cup fairly fast, because I tested my theories rather than tried to just think my way into certainty in advance. This is, I think, a great mistake by many people. They don't just do it - experiment that is. Peter Drucker taught me, through one of his books many years ago, the superiority of this method of experimenting. People who are unsure need to experiment, to paraphrase his advice.
What is the thing? No longer wavering between two opinions as to which one is god. It is either Baal or it is Yahweh. Which one shows that he is God?
Let me stack up the things for you at last:
Baal's prophets, Yahweh's prophet
1) fire from heaven will demonstrate that Baal is god, fire from heaven will demonstrate that Yahweh is god
2) we don't believe that any human being can command fire from heaven, we don't believe that any human being can command fire from heaven
3) the demonstration has to be something that we cannot do ourselves, the demonstration has to be something that we cannot do ourselves
4) the demonstration cannot be subject to coincidence (fire from heaven during a lightning storm), the demonstration cannot be subject to coincidence (it has not even rained for a long time and there are no clouds)
5) the demonstration can happen using wood that burns very easily, the demonstration can be with dry wood but let's make it more miraculous by adding water than no human being can overcome without trouble)
6) our god will answer us while the people are still there, my god will answer even after part of the day is lost and the people might be starting to want to go back home
7) our god surely knows he has a stake in this and hasn't been distracted, your god I think is distracted by the latreen while my god is still interested
8) we think by slashing ourselves greater attention will come from our god, my god needs no such attention getting measures
Some at least have heard who the winner in this experiment was in terms of demonstrating which god was the God. It was the god named Yahweh. Elijah now had not only his own testimony, he also now had the testimony of the people of Israel. No longer was it him alone while the crowds limped along. I know that later in the story Elijah starts to feel sorry for himself all over again. But notice that God reminds him that he is not the only prophet of Yahweh who did not bend the knee and he certainly too was no longer the only one to testify as to who is God among the people. There were now many witnesses.
That is where every reader of this blog can make their mark. They can become witnesses of the things they have seen. You can do it by leaving a comment to let others know you have witnessed what I have said. Others can then add their testimony to yours. I know that I am not alone. I don't have Elijah's problem today at least.
So I would like the testifiers of truth and humility, people who wait until after the experiment and have stopped procrastinating, to join with me and start using my tools under my "communication tools" tab and to start reading my prior experiments in this blog. You'll be surprised what you'll find once you kick procrastination to the back seat of the bus. It is an absolute necessity to understand your importance as fellow connection, witness, and testifier, who waits truthfully and humbly for certainty. Then you shall know and not before. Ah, isn't it fun to stop procrastinating and instead begin to get things done? Take care my fellow witnesses.
In Christ,
Jon
Showing posts with label pure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pure. Show all posts
Monday, May 19, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Genesis 1:1-2:4a (Training - Day/Step 4 of 5)
The thing that cannot be overlooked is that the meanings of words can in fact determine what we must do practically as well. If "blessed" in the Bible means prosperity, then we will take someone's prosperity to mean that they are "blessed" and we will flock to hear them speak. If "blessed" in the Bible instead means integrity, as in a person being consistent between their perception of themselves and who they actually are, then we will flock to hear the person who demonstrates integrity the most.
Likewise with the meaning of "holy" in the Bible. If it means set apart, we will flock to meet or hear the person that demonstrates a morality that is out of this world. If it means moral wholeness (holy consists of more than righteousness, but also includes truth, etc.), then we will try to live morally healthy lives consisting of more than one moral character trait. If on the other hand, it means pure, we will practice keeping ourselves pure from contamination as one of our highest goals and activities.
My next post (planned for tomorrow) will point to what blessed and holy are. In this post, I will assume [if you are uncomfortable with assuming temporarily. then jump to the next post] the meaning of "blessed" as being integrity, based on a working definition. A specific example of this is: "I am who I am". In this post, I will also assume [again, jump ahead if you like] the meaning of "holy" as being moral wholeness. The next post will answer the question of definition, but for this entry I hope you will allow me some indulgence in working out the practical actions with regard to treating the beginning days of generations and the six days of work and the Sabbath rest appropriately.
The first thing in deriving practical applications from this unit of Scripture is to be aware that this is primarily a relationship text. In turn, this also means it has a large portion of the text that is narrative. Genesis as a whole is laying out for us the beginnings and endings of some things and also the ongoing relationship of many generations in places and times. In telling us about the opening days of generations for the heavens and the earth and ourselves, it tells us also what God did and also what we should do.
Besides the practical relationship advice a person can pick up from the stories of Biblical characters in Genesis, there is in this story of creation the opening of work or action by God. He both creates and makes. So here is where we might be able to learn some great action lessons.
First, I wonder, if the creation story does not mean that each time we work we are creating and we are making and that without our working, the world reverts back to a kind of chaos and void. Is that perhaps why the world of neglected buildings tells a story of reverting back to chaos and nothingness to the point of needing even demolishing? Is our work part of the necessary part of sustaining creation beyond its beginning? Are we in any way supposed to be imitators of God and pumped up about going to work rather than reluctant to get to it? What obviously separates us from God is that we in no way started things at the beginning. Rather we ourselves are a part of the beginning. But should we see human work in a much more positive manner?
Let me give you a classic example from my own love of nature as to how work has become a negative rather than a positive. When I was in my junior high years, I acquired a book from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. That pamphlet is my Bible on trout stream habitat. In there, it showed how to do thing with regard to developing trout habit and how not to do things. But in the last decade or more, the DNR has taken a much less active role in creating trout habit in trout streams. As a result, just the other day, I witnessed a former trout brook that no longer supported even one trout in its entire stretch of water. I mean not even one! The entire day that I spent walking (not fishing) the stream, as I scouted this stream for good opportunities to fish later, I never witnessed one fish darting from my approach. What I did see were three major and old "log jams" that I knew would prevent trout from being able to survive in the stretch that I was investigating. By doing no work on this stream, rather than basic regular maintenance, it had led to the death of that stream in terms of trout. It was an instance where our fear of working and of making a mistake on behalf of the trout had led to our entire failure to work and therefore create and make habit for a species who would thrive in these waters. That is a great illustration of why work needs to be seen more positively, like what I saw in playing football where doing something correctly was supposed to replace doing something incorrectly rather than either being replaced by doing nothing.
Second, I think this passage teaches a relationship component, when it comes to work. There should be a limit on the work week or better perhaps a line drawn between weeks. Work it appears is not supposed to be endless. The other day, I ran into a person who bragged to me that she worked every single day. She was a great person and I admire her hard work ethic. But I think one danger is like the danger for Jack in the old saying, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy". Another danger is that one becomes a slave. Working all seven days in ancient times was considered to be the mark of a slave. Right now, this person is being enslaved without seeing it.
A further danger is the obvious danger of burnout. For me, working six days a week for about seven hours per day seems to be the best schedule. That one day break is just enough to re-invigorate me and also only seven hours per day allows me other things in each day besides work. I don't have any idea that I would ever work something like ten to eleven hours per day for four days and take the next three off. I find that when I work that long each day, things like my capacity for quality work diminish. I can work, but the mind is not there. So I think that God's work pattern should be ours. Six days on, one day off is my personal favorite and I think I like it because God liked it. Again, I love work as much as I loved playing football. As long as I accomplish something in reasonable time, leaving time for other things every day, what is not to like? And this little vacation each week maybe is the pattern for all the longer ones as well. Check out the Hebrew Old Testament sometime for all their times off. I think ample time off is part of the practical outcome of the creation story.
Third, because God blesses and makes holy the Sabbath Day, we should do the same. If bless means to call a person by a name that fits them (or has integrity with who they are), then that action likely needs to be part of our day. I would think that it would have the effect of what we call affirmations. God in this day, called his rest day by a name that means rest day. Maybe we should be more thoughtful in choosing names for children or nicknames for friends.
Also in making the day holy, if holy means moral wholeness, this would then mean observing the whole day as a day of rest without any mixture of work in it (impurity), and as seeing it as distinct (set apart) from the others in that they are work days while this is a rest day the entire day and maybe not just the better part of it like our work days. I think the idea of keeping the Sabbath a Sabbath for the entire day can do the whole of who we are a lot of good. God seemed to be pleased by it in not doing any work that day. He did not seem the least displeased with having to end his work for the week, before moving on to the next week. I got a feeling God is not done working or making each week until his own Sabbath arrives. The question is not what God is doing now however, but what are we doing. Do we work and rest? Or do we work and work? Or do we rest and work? Or do we rest and rest? Are we like God in our actions?
So ask yourself first, "Do I love working - creating and making?" Ask second, "Do I know when to work and when to take a break?" Ask third, "Do I affirm others in a way that fits with who they are? And do I not work at all for a whole day as far as my wage earning job is concerned? "
I hope you have answer affirmatively to some of those questions, because then you are living out this passage, not just reading it and never looking in the mirror at yourself. Take a good look. Do you have God's demeanor when it comes to creating and making? Get out there and do something!
In Christ,
Jon
Likewise with the meaning of "holy" in the Bible. If it means set apart, we will flock to meet or hear the person that demonstrates a morality that is out of this world. If it means moral wholeness (holy consists of more than righteousness, but also includes truth, etc.), then we will try to live morally healthy lives consisting of more than one moral character trait. If on the other hand, it means pure, we will practice keeping ourselves pure from contamination as one of our highest goals and activities.
My next post (planned for tomorrow) will point to what blessed and holy are. In this post, I will assume [if you are uncomfortable with assuming temporarily. then jump to the next post] the meaning of "blessed" as being integrity, based on a working definition. A specific example of this is: "I am who I am". In this post, I will also assume [again, jump ahead if you like] the meaning of "holy" as being moral wholeness. The next post will answer the question of definition, but for this entry I hope you will allow me some indulgence in working out the practical actions with regard to treating the beginning days of generations and the six days of work and the Sabbath rest appropriately.
The first thing in deriving practical applications from this unit of Scripture is to be aware that this is primarily a relationship text. In turn, this also means it has a large portion of the text that is narrative. Genesis as a whole is laying out for us the beginnings and endings of some things and also the ongoing relationship of many generations in places and times. In telling us about the opening days of generations for the heavens and the earth and ourselves, it tells us also what God did and also what we should do.
Besides the practical relationship advice a person can pick up from the stories of Biblical characters in Genesis, there is in this story of creation the opening of work or action by God. He both creates and makes. So here is where we might be able to learn some great action lessons.
First, I wonder, if the creation story does not mean that each time we work we are creating and we are making and that without our working, the world reverts back to a kind of chaos and void. Is that perhaps why the world of neglected buildings tells a story of reverting back to chaos and nothingness to the point of needing even demolishing? Is our work part of the necessary part of sustaining creation beyond its beginning? Are we in any way supposed to be imitators of God and pumped up about going to work rather than reluctant to get to it? What obviously separates us from God is that we in no way started things at the beginning. Rather we ourselves are a part of the beginning. But should we see human work in a much more positive manner?
Let me give you a classic example from my own love of nature as to how work has become a negative rather than a positive. When I was in my junior high years, I acquired a book from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. That pamphlet is my Bible on trout stream habitat. In there, it showed how to do thing with regard to developing trout habit and how not to do things. But in the last decade or more, the DNR has taken a much less active role in creating trout habit in trout streams. As a result, just the other day, I witnessed a former trout brook that no longer supported even one trout in its entire stretch of water. I mean not even one! The entire day that I spent walking (not fishing) the stream, as I scouted this stream for good opportunities to fish later, I never witnessed one fish darting from my approach. What I did see were three major and old "log jams" that I knew would prevent trout from being able to survive in the stretch that I was investigating. By doing no work on this stream, rather than basic regular maintenance, it had led to the death of that stream in terms of trout. It was an instance where our fear of working and of making a mistake on behalf of the trout had led to our entire failure to work and therefore create and make habit for a species who would thrive in these waters. That is a great illustration of why work needs to be seen more positively, like what I saw in playing football where doing something correctly was supposed to replace doing something incorrectly rather than either being replaced by doing nothing.
Second, I think this passage teaches a relationship component, when it comes to work. There should be a limit on the work week or better perhaps a line drawn between weeks. Work it appears is not supposed to be endless. The other day, I ran into a person who bragged to me that she worked every single day. She was a great person and I admire her hard work ethic. But I think one danger is like the danger for Jack in the old saying, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy". Another danger is that one becomes a slave. Working all seven days in ancient times was considered to be the mark of a slave. Right now, this person is being enslaved without seeing it.
A further danger is the obvious danger of burnout. For me, working six days a week for about seven hours per day seems to be the best schedule. That one day break is just enough to re-invigorate me and also only seven hours per day allows me other things in each day besides work. I don't have any idea that I would ever work something like ten to eleven hours per day for four days and take the next three off. I find that when I work that long each day, things like my capacity for quality work diminish. I can work, but the mind is not there. So I think that God's work pattern should be ours. Six days on, one day off is my personal favorite and I think I like it because God liked it. Again, I love work as much as I loved playing football. As long as I accomplish something in reasonable time, leaving time for other things every day, what is not to like? And this little vacation each week maybe is the pattern for all the longer ones as well. Check out the Hebrew Old Testament sometime for all their times off. I think ample time off is part of the practical outcome of the creation story.
Third, because God blesses and makes holy the Sabbath Day, we should do the same. If bless means to call a person by a name that fits them (or has integrity with who they are), then that action likely needs to be part of our day. I would think that it would have the effect of what we call affirmations. God in this day, called his rest day by a name that means rest day. Maybe we should be more thoughtful in choosing names for children or nicknames for friends.
God in this day, called his rest day
by a name that means rest day.
Also in making the day holy, if holy means moral wholeness, this would then mean observing the whole day as a day of rest without any mixture of work in it (impurity), and as seeing it as distinct (set apart) from the others in that they are work days while this is a rest day the entire day and maybe not just the better part of it like our work days. I think the idea of keeping the Sabbath a Sabbath for the entire day can do the whole of who we are a lot of good. God seemed to be pleased by it in not doing any work that day. He did not seem the least displeased with having to end his work for the week, before moving on to the next week. I got a feeling God is not done working or making each week until his own Sabbath arrives. The question is not what God is doing now however, but what are we doing. Do we work and rest? Or do we work and work? Or do we rest and work? Or do we rest and rest? Are we like God in our actions?
So ask yourself first, "Do I love working - creating and making?" Ask second, "Do I know when to work and when to take a break?" Ask third, "Do I affirm others in a way that fits with who they are? And do I not work at all for a whole day as far as my wage earning job is concerned? "
I hope you have answer affirmatively to some of those questions, because then you are living out this passage, not just reading it and never looking in the mirror at yourself. Take a good look. Do you have God's demeanor when it comes to creating and making? Get out there and do something!
In Christ,
Jon
Monday, March 03, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Understanding the Arrangement of my Blog Entries
I am sure you came to this blog looking for the definition of holy. Since that is the case, I will begin by saying that I recommend not letting go of the three top possibilities. They are: 1) moral wholeness, 2) pure, and 3) set apart. That is what I recommend until you dig deeper and read more. But to do either the digging or reading on this blog, it will be helpful for you to know how my entries are arranged or organized. You can have the biggest library in the world, but if it is disorganized, it is worth less than a smaller one tightly organized.
I think an effective way to think of their organization is to think in terms of the persuasion or communication cascade found in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion: 1) reception, 2) processing, 3) response, and 4) behavior. Near the end of last year (Nov. 18, 2013), I became a person persuaded so far in the progress of the cascade that I reached stage 4, behavior. But that is not where I have always been starting with 2004. So let me point out the different kinds of reading that you will find.
RECEPTION POSTS: DID YOU GET IT?
From the beginning of 2004 to mid 2006, my posts are of the reception kind. This is when I first began to get it that holy could mean "moral wholeness". Prior to that time period, I didn't even know that the idea existed. So it was all brand new to me during the first period of reception. By the way, I had times when I really doubted the idea in the early going even if it does not show. If you still need to just receive the idea of a new definition for the first time, then I recommend going back to my earliest writing.
PROCESSING POSTS: DID YOU THINK ABOUT IT?
From mid 2006 to the end of 2008, my posts are of the processing kind. Toward the end of this time I also enrolled in post-graduate studies to process things more fully. I wanted to be able to answer the question: "Did you think about it?" with an affirmative. This is when I did a great deal of digging. It was my time to be thoughtful beyond just receiving the idea of moral wholeness. Here is when I began to dig more thoroughly into Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If you need to dig more thoroughly, I would look at my posts during that time period.
RESPONSE: DID IT CHANGE YOU?
From 2009 through mid 2001, I began to think more about how I could make my blog posts more easy to use (user friendly), more fun (see the implications from this!), and more popular (to help people see that in the past it was the most popular position and that in the future this idea can rise to a majority view). In geek speak, these motivators for change are called: 1) self efficacy, 2) attitude, and 3) norms. As the saying goes like a rose, regardless of the name it's still the same thing. Don't think that 1) easy, 2) fun, and 3) popular are the whole story. There is a cost before you reach that result. But I've never heard of someone who doesn't appreciate a user friend device over one that is not.
BEHAVIOR: DID YOU HAVE A TACTFUL VIEW?
From mid 2011 through the end of 2013, I began to have a more TACTFUL VIEW of what I was writing. This is primarily seen in trying to cover all ten of the major questions that the mind asks to have answered before proceeding. It is also much more specific and not vague. Good intentions are not what is looked for here, but something that is concrete, observable performance and results that can be seen. It is what allows things to be known through action and results rather than unknown through vague or unclear things that are desired. By asking all ten questions contained in a TACTFUL VIEW (the eleventh letter states all ten are needed), it guarantees a full of answering all the major questions rather than just some.wide open dreams. It also guarantees more tact or class will be used in communication. Tact and class are something we can use more of in discussing conflict and controversy especially.
So depending on where you are in the persuasion cascade that is where you should begin in checking out my posts. My latest are especially more of a wrap-up than a starting point. To see the full effect of what is needed at each stage it can be helpful to consult the dates I suggest. Happy hunting everyone!
In Christ,
Jon
I think an effective way to think of their organization is to think in terms of the persuasion or communication cascade found in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion: 1) reception, 2) processing, 3) response, and 4) behavior. Near the end of last year (Nov. 18, 2013), I became a person persuaded so far in the progress of the cascade that I reached stage 4, behavior. But that is not where I have always been starting with 2004. So let me point out the different kinds of reading that you will find.
RECEPTION POSTS: DID YOU GET IT?
From the beginning of 2004 to mid 2006, my posts are of the reception kind. This is when I first began to get it that holy could mean "moral wholeness". Prior to that time period, I didn't even know that the idea existed. So it was all brand new to me during the first period of reception. By the way, I had times when I really doubted the idea in the early going even if it does not show. If you still need to just receive the idea of a new definition for the first time, then I recommend going back to my earliest writing.
PROCESSING POSTS: DID YOU THINK ABOUT IT?
From mid 2006 to the end of 2008, my posts are of the processing kind. Toward the end of this time I also enrolled in post-graduate studies to process things more fully. I wanted to be able to answer the question: "Did you think about it?" with an affirmative. This is when I did a great deal of digging. It was my time to be thoughtful beyond just receiving the idea of moral wholeness. Here is when I began to dig more thoroughly into Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If you need to dig more thoroughly, I would look at my posts during that time period.
RESPONSE: DID IT CHANGE YOU?
From 2009 through mid 2001, I began to think more about how I could make my blog posts more easy to use (user friendly), more fun (see the implications from this!), and more popular (to help people see that in the past it was the most popular position and that in the future this idea can rise to a majority view). In geek speak, these motivators for change are called: 1) self efficacy, 2) attitude, and 3) norms. As the saying goes like a rose, regardless of the name it's still the same thing. Don't think that 1) easy, 2) fun, and 3) popular are the whole story. There is a cost before you reach that result. But I've never heard of someone who doesn't appreciate a user friend device over one that is not.
BEHAVIOR: DID YOU HAVE A TACTFUL VIEW?
From mid 2011 through the end of 2013, I began to have a more TACTFUL VIEW of what I was writing. This is primarily seen in trying to cover all ten of the major questions that the mind asks to have answered before proceeding. It is also much more specific and not vague. Good intentions are not what is looked for here, but something that is concrete, observable performance and results that can be seen. It is what allows things to be known through action and results rather than unknown through vague or unclear things that are desired. By asking all ten questions contained in a TACTFUL VIEW (the eleventh letter states all ten are needed), it guarantees a full of answering all the major questions rather than just some.wide open dreams. It also guarantees more tact or class will be used in communication. Tact and class are something we can use more of in discussing conflict and controversy especially.
So depending on where you are in the persuasion cascade that is where you should begin in checking out my posts. My latest are especially more of a wrap-up than a starting point. To see the full effect of what is needed at each stage it can be helpful to consult the dates I suggest. Happy hunting everyone!
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, February 28, 2014
Holy: Understanding It Better Through Understanding Persuasion Better
We can all be really gullible sometimes. The discussion surrounding the meaning of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy all clearly demonstrate the danger. This danger is aggravated or heightened by the fact that each of these words are critical to understanding God's Word as a whole. When I ask people around me about how they discern an expert opinion from one that is not, they tell me they are very confused by all the different opinions. I personally know the feeling, but I also know a way out from all the different views and how to find a viable agreement among the experts.
Let me first remove some gullibility by explaining how you and I are persuaded by others. When you know how people persuade you, then it dramatically reduces your gullibility and makes you able to make your own decisions. How you are persuaded is not necessarily evil. It is like someone who knows any skill. It can be used or abused. It can be used for people's own selfish ends or for ends that advance not only selfish ends but the other's ends as well. Any skill can become something that conforms to love your neighbor as much as yourself. So persuasion as a skill does not always have to lead to love myself more than I love my neighbor. So what we need to know is when people are abusing persuasion skillfully and when they are using persuasion skillfully.
In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion, the author uses the analogy of a cascade to illustrate how persuasion works. He identifies this sequence to bring about a communication cascade toward persuasion. The steps are:
1) reception
2) processing
3) response, and
4) behavior.
So if these are the steps, let me give you the simplest explanation of each. I will get you a one sentence definition of each. Here is each one:
1) reception - it is the first dawn of awareness that there is something new out there and it needs to saturate communities with its message (ex. 2004 is when I first heard something new about holy - that it can mean moral wholeness and I found it in lots of communities of faith)
2) processing - it is discerning whether the light bulb in your receiver's mind is bright or dim and realizing that sometimes people are highly willing (the light bulb burns brightly) and other times not so much so (the light bulb burns dimly), so you have to move the dimmer switch to burn more brightly before there will be willing processing to maintain and make time for what is needed (ex. for the next 10 years, I processed the idea of moral wholeness and other ideas related to holy)
3) response - it is that point when the processing turns to action through demonstrating a favorable outcome through key motivators like easy, fun, and popular. The author here recognizes that we are adults, so the geek speak or adult equivalent for each of these is self-efficacy, attitude, and norms. The message has to create strong intentions or goals and strong motivators. (ex. it was easy [I could do it] using Eugene Nida's word classes to play around [attitude] with possible meanings for holy looking for the one that ought to be popular [fit the norm of biblical])
4) behavior - this is where a TACTful view is required according to this author by getting very specific about behavior, not just a generic response. Unfortunately, the author is not specific enough to satisfy a high school level mind, so I will add to their "TACTful view" a more "TACTFUL VIEW". Here it goes:
T) Target - who?
A) Action - how?
C) Context - where?
T) Time - when?
F) Fun - why?
U) Uncommon - which?
L) Label - what?
V) Vigorous - whole?
I) Intense - how many?
E) Enough - how much?
W) Way - all the way through all 10 of these or persuasion behavior will fail
Unfortunately, many people are persuaded even with huge gaps in answering these questions that the mind requires answers to before it finds what it is looking for ultimately. So if you want to avoid gullibility, then avoid persuasion that leaves you feeling these are not questions they answer, but questions they leave out. Even today, as I write, this one entry should not a case make. You need to read other of my entries too (read the newest first!). The only case I am making today that might be fully persuasive is that this is how persuasion works for the good (and unfortunately sometimes to the bad).
So each step of the persuasion cascade is how our words as persuaders cascade all the way into full blown behavior on every level - heart, soul, strength, and mind. So let me move from this common communication cascade of persuasion to one of the specifics of the meanings of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy, It does no good, if nothing if I am not specific at this point about my behavior.
As I look at things, I sense right now (and I am gathering wise counsel at this point) the need to write a book and a paper on the topics of the three most important words in the Bible - LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy. The reason is because even though the internet is a wonderful way to gain reception in the world, it does not gain reception in some of the places that I would like my writing to gain reception. I would like scholars to hear what I have to say. I would like pastors to hear what I have to say. I would like lay people to hear what I have to say. Especially the last, since they are so numerous and I want heaven filled with people! Reception is a little harder to get than just writing on the internet alone. You also have to be persuasive!
A more popular book for pastors is where I think I should begin, since that type of speech communication comes easiest to me. The next would be the write to the scholarly community, because they are critical in a discussion of who really has expertise. And by expertise, I hope part of it is persuasive expertise. Finally, I want to speak anytime I can and write to the average person, because there is a lot more of them than the first two categories making them immensely important. But I think that they have the right to see me earn my wings of expertise too. It does no good if they see me ducking the tough (fun!) road of ministry professionals and seminary scholars. There may be other means, but so far it appears those two pieces are needed to be specific enough to get the job done.
In the meantime, keep in your mind the three major scholarly opinions for the biblical meaning of holy: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apart. Treasure all three and do not let anyone take any one of the three from your mind of discovery. Receive it don't let anyone steal any of them. I'll need something a little longer to make my case for the biblical understanding of holy (and the others), but Lord willing it is coming given time. May God bless your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Let me first remove some gullibility by explaining how you and I are persuaded by others. When you know how people persuade you, then it dramatically reduces your gullibility and makes you able to make your own decisions. How you are persuaded is not necessarily evil. It is like someone who knows any skill. It can be used or abused. It can be used for people's own selfish ends or for ends that advance not only selfish ends but the other's ends as well. Any skill can become something that conforms to love your neighbor as much as yourself. So persuasion as a skill does not always have to lead to love myself more than I love my neighbor. So what we need to know is when people are abusing persuasion skillfully and when they are using persuasion skillfully.
In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Persuasion, the author uses the analogy of a cascade to illustrate how persuasion works. He identifies this sequence to bring about a communication cascade toward persuasion. The steps are:
1) reception
2) processing
3) response, and
4) behavior.
So if these are the steps, let me give you the simplest explanation of each. I will get you a one sentence definition of each. Here is each one:
1) reception - it is the first dawn of awareness that there is something new out there and it needs to saturate communities with its message (ex. 2004 is when I first heard something new about holy - that it can mean moral wholeness and I found it in lots of communities of faith)
2) processing - it is discerning whether the light bulb in your receiver's mind is bright or dim and realizing that sometimes people are highly willing (the light bulb burns brightly) and other times not so much so (the light bulb burns dimly), so you have to move the dimmer switch to burn more brightly before there will be willing processing to maintain and make time for what is needed (ex. for the next 10 years, I processed the idea of moral wholeness and other ideas related to holy)
3) response - it is that point when the processing turns to action through demonstrating a favorable outcome through key motivators like easy, fun, and popular. The author here recognizes that we are adults, so the geek speak or adult equivalent for each of these is self-efficacy, attitude, and norms. The message has to create strong intentions or goals and strong motivators. (ex. it was easy [I could do it] using Eugene Nida's word classes to play around [attitude] with possible meanings for holy looking for the one that ought to be popular [fit the norm of biblical])
4) behavior - this is where a TACTful view is required according to this author by getting very specific about behavior, not just a generic response. Unfortunately, the author is not specific enough to satisfy a high school level mind, so I will add to their "TACTful view" a more "TACTFUL VIEW". Here it goes:
T) Target - who?
A) Action - how?
C) Context - where?
T) Time - when?
F) Fun - why?
U) Uncommon - which?
L) Label - what?
V) Vigorous - whole?
I) Intense - how many?
E) Enough - how much?
W) Way - all the way through all 10 of these or persuasion behavior will fail
Unfortunately, many people are persuaded even with huge gaps in answering these questions that the mind requires answers to before it finds what it is looking for ultimately. So if you want to avoid gullibility, then avoid persuasion that leaves you feeling these are not questions they answer, but questions they leave out. Even today, as I write, this one entry should not a case make. You need to read other of my entries too (read the newest first!). The only case I am making today that might be fully persuasive is that this is how persuasion works for the good (and unfortunately sometimes to the bad).
So each step of the persuasion cascade is how our words as persuaders cascade all the way into full blown behavior on every level - heart, soul, strength, and mind. So let me move from this common communication cascade of persuasion to one of the specifics of the meanings of LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy, It does no good, if nothing if I am not specific at this point about my behavior.
As I look at things, I sense right now (and I am gathering wise counsel at this point) the need to write a book and a paper on the topics of the three most important words in the Bible - LORD/Yahweh, blessed, and holy. The reason is because even though the internet is a wonderful way to gain reception in the world, it does not gain reception in some of the places that I would like my writing to gain reception. I would like scholars to hear what I have to say. I would like pastors to hear what I have to say. I would like lay people to hear what I have to say. Especially the last, since they are so numerous and I want heaven filled with people! Reception is a little harder to get than just writing on the internet alone. You also have to be persuasive!
A more popular book for pastors is where I think I should begin, since that type of speech communication comes easiest to me. The next would be the write to the scholarly community, because they are critical in a discussion of who really has expertise. And by expertise, I hope part of it is persuasive expertise. Finally, I want to speak anytime I can and write to the average person, because there is a lot more of them than the first two categories making them immensely important. But I think that they have the right to see me earn my wings of expertise too. It does no good if they see me ducking the tough (fun!) road of ministry professionals and seminary scholars. There may be other means, but so far it appears those two pieces are needed to be specific enough to get the job done.
In the meantime, keep in your mind the three major scholarly opinions for the biblical meaning of holy: 1) moral wholeness, 2) purity, and 3) set apart. Treasure all three and do not let anyone take any one of the three from your mind of discovery. Receive it don't let anyone steal any of them. I'll need something a little longer to make my case for the biblical understanding of holy (and the others), but Lord willing it is coming given time. May God bless your day.
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Holy: Celebrating Its Definition being Viewed 40,000 Times!
I believe it is a good time to celebrate the visiting of this blog 40,000 times plus. When I began this effort, I received a lot of help from a pastor friend, Jeremiah Fyffe. He allowed me to learn what Google and other search engines are looking for, so that my blog would not get lost in the search.
I am extremely grateful to him, because this blog has continued to be at or near the very top of the search engines entries, when people enter the words "definition of holy". I want to also celebrate the fact that this now means that 40,000 times people have taken time out of their day to read my humble thoughts. I feel very fortunate to see this even further benefit from one fellow pastor's sage comments.
I also want to re-commit myself to continuing to writing much more and producing better quality entries to read. I know on one level that I am getting better, but I do wish I had more time to add diagrams and pictures to make my entries even clearer and more interesting.
A big "thank you" goes out to Jeremiah (and other helpers) and to all who have spent part of the their life reading what I have to say. Your time is precious, so hope you feel you have spent your time wisely.
In Christ,
Jon
P. S. I want you to know that the definition of holy that I propose is that it is "moral wholeness", but check out my other entries for what I do with "set apart" and "pure". You might find my treatment to be a new insight for you and very viable in terms of solid scholarship. Thank you again.
I am extremely grateful to him, because this blog has continued to be at or near the very top of the search engines entries, when people enter the words "definition of holy". I want to also celebrate the fact that this now means that 40,000 times people have taken time out of their day to read my humble thoughts. I feel very fortunate to see this even further benefit from one fellow pastor's sage comments.
I also want to re-commit myself to continuing to writing much more and producing better quality entries to read. I know on one level that I am getting better, but I do wish I had more time to add diagrams and pictures to make my entries even clearer and more interesting.
A big "thank you" goes out to Jeremiah (and other helpers) and to all who have spent part of the their life reading what I have to say. Your time is precious, so hope you feel you have spent your time wisely.
In Christ,
Jon
P. S. I want you to know that the definition of holy that I propose is that it is "moral wholeness", but check out my other entries for what I do with "set apart" and "pure". You might find my treatment to be a new insight for you and very viable in terms of solid scholarship. Thank you again.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Holy: Understanding it Better Despite the Hype or Conspiracy Theory
I was taught a great principle many years ago. It is that it is best approach to a would-be customer is to "under-promise and over-deliver" rather than the reverse. Despite this good advice, many people still make the same mistake - they over-promise. When you do that you open yourself to the charge of just offering a lot of hype along with broken promises. But hype is not the only danger. You also have to avoid the conspiracy theory - the idea that all promises are made to be broken. This is the fear of promises being there just to bring you aboard before you discover that the attitude of promises are made to be broken and that high expectations are meant to crumble. So how do you know if you have got a legitimate promise from a scholar or non-scholar as to what holy means in the Bible?
First, I know from experience the meaning of being over-promised. One thing that happens in Christian circles is that Christians over-promise what God's promises are for this life. Bad things never happen to good people. The truth is that this life includes the promise and guarantee of persecution. To say that your life in this life will be changed dramatically needs to be qualified. It is not an over-promise when it comes to eternity, but it is a dangerous promise for this life. We live in a day when manic-depression is becoming more and more common place. Could it be that people are becoming more manic though over-promises that they take seriously? They think everything will have a fairy tale ending. How much better if we promised people promises that can be kept?
Second, I also know from experience the meaning of every opportunity being seen as a conspiracy. Good things never happen to good people. We're always under attack from the persecutors. Good things happen only to those who compromise their principles and avoid persecution. I've heard my fair share of this kind of talk as well. I call it the radio talk show host syndrome. Drum up enough sentiment that the end is near and that all is going not well. Everyone knows the great conspiracy is winning without our seeing it. But is that a promise that is for sure? Do we really know the secret will of God? I thought so. We don't. And maybe depression could be lifted too if people did not experience so often the broken promises of fairy tales and conspiracy theories? Who knows.
So now let's look at the definition of holy. Scholars promise people that they will help people become consciously aware of what the Bible in the original languages is saying to us. If they are not, then they promise to be open about their uncertainty and be real with us. So far, so good it seems. But some Christian scholars even promise that in God's secret providence they know that on the major things in the Bible that the church cannot be wrong. As good evangelicals or otherwise, they know God would not let us down in this way. I find this over-promise very interesting, because if that is true, then God would never allow the church to not have the definition of holy wrong. The problem is that the church has contradicted itself over time as to what holy means in the Bible. So some Christians (those who call themselves by that name) must be wrong on a major topic.
I have proven many times before that at least since the Reformation, the primary definition of holy for the five major Protestant Reformers is that holy meant moral wholeness. The problem is that today many evangelical followers of these leaders have a different definition for holy. They say it means set apart. In between these two periods there were also some who claimed it meant pure. So if God keeps us always aware in His providence of the meaning of major words in Scripture, then how are these contradictions possible? There is another example of a major in Scripture having a problem the church is not sure how to solve. How can the Greatest Commandment (a major in the Bible), be quoted differently in Scripture? I thought we always know the majors? Returning again to holy, you can find the idea of set apart with moral wholeness in the older literature, but moral wholeness was the primary then unlike now. Up to this moment, you usually find set apart as the definition with little or no mention of moral wholeness. It is not even treated as secondary. It is treated as blatantly mistaken. I think we have an over-promise being made about God's providence in hat case. Majors in the Bible do not automatically mean that the church is not making any errors in its understanding through history. Not only that, but it flatly contradicts biblical history with its ebb and flow of God's people understanding God Himself correctly. That Biblical history to me is the real promise in history that should be promoted. Despite errors in understanding and elsewhere, the Jews survived. So can Christians today, based on God's providence for the Jews.
If biblical history was our guide for how much God really promises rather than our thinking we know the secret things of God in history, then I think we would not be so afraid of admitting our errors. Right now, to admit our errors is tantamount to saying God has let us down, because we have created a false promise or an over-promise that has people saying the church is all hype. That in turns can create a great deal of conspiracy theorists who realize that people are then disillusioned. The over-promise of understanding the Bible on major things all the time has got to get out of the way for God's real promises to be fulfilled.
Luther discovered a misunderstanding, Calvin a misunderstanding, Cranmer a misunderstanding, Wesley a misunderstanding, and Spurgeon a misunderstanding within the church's theology or teaching. Don't think that our generation of Christian's is automatically an exception to the rule of what God has done previously. He has let the church drift away through its own failure. He does not guarantee that we are right, because He is right. He guarantees to right us when we seek His face. Not on everything, not on the majors, not all the time, not to equal perfection, and not just because we think we are consciously aware of what God is secretly doing. He does it all according to His will including both what we know and what we don't know.
If I had to guess the #1 reason that few people today (who knows about tomorrow) take seriously the definition of moral wholeness, I would say it is because of all the false hype. The promises that have been promised that have not been kept. People everywhere are disillusioned by the over-promises of the past. Here is what I can promise. I will trust God that whatever level of understanding He gives me of his Word, He gives it to me in accordance with His promises and not according to some excessive hype nor due to some conspiracy that all churches are liars about God's promises and Christian understanding of Scripture.
Christians need to do the work. God never promised good fruit without a good tree. And a good tree comes from a good gardener who works his orchards. He does not just assume what the weather will be like. He trusts God through the wind and the rain as well as through the calm and the sunshine. Good Christians know that the question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on His side, because He does not guarantee that we always fight for what pleases Him. He only promises that He always fights for what is right and will give us light as He sees fit to give us light.
Please let go of over-promises and find the great promises of God as we come up on that season where God's Son rose from the dead even as He promised. Ah, a real promise that is kept. Now that's how we all ought to like it. God that time really over-delivered!
Sincerely,
Jon
First, I know from experience the meaning of being over-promised. One thing that happens in Christian circles is that Christians over-promise what God's promises are for this life. Bad things never happen to good people. The truth is that this life includes the promise and guarantee of persecution. To say that your life in this life will be changed dramatically needs to be qualified. It is not an over-promise when it comes to eternity, but it is a dangerous promise for this life. We live in a day when manic-depression is becoming more and more common place. Could it be that people are becoming more manic though over-promises that they take seriously? They think everything will have a fairy tale ending. How much better if we promised people promises that can be kept?
Second, I also know from experience the meaning of every opportunity being seen as a conspiracy. Good things never happen to good people. We're always under attack from the persecutors. Good things happen only to those who compromise their principles and avoid persecution. I've heard my fair share of this kind of talk as well. I call it the radio talk show host syndrome. Drum up enough sentiment that the end is near and that all is going not well. Everyone knows the great conspiracy is winning without our seeing it. But is that a promise that is for sure? Do we really know the secret will of God? I thought so. We don't. And maybe depression could be lifted too if people did not experience so often the broken promises of fairy tales and conspiracy theories? Who knows.
So now let's look at the definition of holy. Scholars promise people that they will help people become consciously aware of what the Bible in the original languages is saying to us. If they are not, then they promise to be open about their uncertainty and be real with us. So far, so good it seems. But some Christian scholars even promise that in God's secret providence they know that on the major things in the Bible that the church cannot be wrong. As good evangelicals or otherwise, they know God would not let us down in this way. I find this over-promise very interesting, because if that is true, then God would never allow the church to not have the definition of holy wrong. The problem is that the church has contradicted itself over time as to what holy means in the Bible. So some Christians (those who call themselves by that name) must be wrong on a major topic.
I have proven many times before that at least since the Reformation, the primary definition of holy for the five major Protestant Reformers is that holy meant moral wholeness. The problem is that today many evangelical followers of these leaders have a different definition for holy. They say it means set apart. In between these two periods there were also some who claimed it meant pure. So if God keeps us always aware in His providence of the meaning of major words in Scripture, then how are these contradictions possible? There is another example of a major in Scripture having a problem the church is not sure how to solve. How can the Greatest Commandment (a major in the Bible), be quoted differently in Scripture? I thought we always know the majors? Returning again to holy, you can find the idea of set apart with moral wholeness in the older literature, but moral wholeness was the primary then unlike now. Up to this moment, you usually find set apart as the definition with little or no mention of moral wholeness. It is not even treated as secondary. It is treated as blatantly mistaken. I think we have an over-promise being made about God's providence in hat case. Majors in the Bible do not automatically mean that the church is not making any errors in its understanding through history. Not only that, but it flatly contradicts biblical history with its ebb and flow of God's people understanding God Himself correctly. That Biblical history to me is the real promise in history that should be promoted. Despite errors in understanding and elsewhere, the Jews survived. So can Christians today, based on God's providence for the Jews.
If biblical history was our guide for how much God really promises rather than our thinking we know the secret things of God in history, then I think we would not be so afraid of admitting our errors. Right now, to admit our errors is tantamount to saying God has let us down, because we have created a false promise or an over-promise that has people saying the church is all hype. That in turns can create a great deal of conspiracy theorists who realize that people are then disillusioned. The over-promise of understanding the Bible on major things all the time has got to get out of the way for God's real promises to be fulfilled.
Luther discovered a misunderstanding, Calvin a misunderstanding, Cranmer a misunderstanding, Wesley a misunderstanding, and Spurgeon a misunderstanding within the church's theology or teaching. Don't think that our generation of Christian's is automatically an exception to the rule of what God has done previously. He has let the church drift away through its own failure. He does not guarantee that we are right, because He is right. He guarantees to right us when we seek His face. Not on everything, not on the majors, not all the time, not to equal perfection, and not just because we think we are consciously aware of what God is secretly doing. He does it all according to His will including both what we know and what we don't know.
If I had to guess the #1 reason that few people today (who knows about tomorrow) take seriously the definition of moral wholeness, I would say it is because of all the false hype. The promises that have been promised that have not been kept. People everywhere are disillusioned by the over-promises of the past. Here is what I can promise. I will trust God that whatever level of understanding He gives me of his Word, He gives it to me in accordance with His promises and not according to some excessive hype nor due to some conspiracy that all churches are liars about God's promises and Christian understanding of Scripture.
Christians need to do the work. God never promised good fruit without a good tree. And a good tree comes from a good gardener who works his orchards. He does not just assume what the weather will be like. He trusts God through the wind and the rain as well as through the calm and the sunshine. Good Christians know that the question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on His side, because He does not guarantee that we always fight for what pleases Him. He only promises that He always fights for what is right and will give us light as He sees fit to give us light.
Please let go of over-promises and find the great promises of God as we come up on that season where God's Son rose from the dead even as He promised. Ah, a real promise that is kept. Now that's how we all ought to like it. God that time really over-delivered!
Sincerely,
Jon
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Digging (like an archaeologist)
It is unbelievable some days what I discover through digging through old books rather than old rocks. I consider what I am doing a little like digging through the layers that archaeologists dig through and indicate in their photos. Today, I found another incredible discovery. It is a book by John August Henry Tittmann. Its title is: Remarks on the Synonyms of the New Testament.
It is an older book, but I am not ashamed to say that I like digging through the old as well as the new. What I have found is that many things obvious to previous generations have been lost due to a simple bias against the old. In this case of trying to discern the meaning of holy, it is a bias against older scholarship. I think instead what scholars, students, and pastors should do instead, is dig through the older layers and recognize all the layers in the process, not just the top soil of our present time. John A. L. Lee's work on lexicography shows how danger it can be to operate without a knowledge of layers and a blind trust in authority rather than trust and verify.
Here is a link to what this older scholar, Tittmann, has to say, so you can dig for yourself a bit: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL23329406M/Remarks_on_the_synonyms_of_the_New_Testament. Check out especially pages 35-46. And also if you really want to get right to the heart of what holy means, you can examine pages 45-46 for his summary.
If I may summarize what he says here, he says: "hagios (Greek) is that which, on account of integrity of mind and morals, is sacred to God and revered." What is most interesting to me in my investigations is his use of "integrity ... of morals". This would fit very well with the idea of "moral wholeness". But perhaps what is more valuable is that he also places purity and being set apart alongside of his "integrity of morals". He says that "ieros" (Greek) has a connection with the idea of "consecrated to, or set apart for God". He also adds that katharis (Greek) is connected to the idea of "pure" as would also "agnos" (Greek).
If you read what he says carefully, then you can see its parallelism with the proposal (by Andrew Murray many years later), that there are other possible words for being set apart rather than the words qadosh (Hebrew) or hagios (Greek). This proposal is worth considering and I must give credit to Richard Trench for his volume on synonyms for alerting me to this once renowned scholar. Its it too bad that often awareness gets buried by generations and time? I rejoice in another discovery and another opportunity to make people aware and bring knowledge to a sometimes darkened world. Digging has its rewards!
In Christ,
Jon
It is an older book, but I am not ashamed to say that I like digging through the old as well as the new. What I have found is that many things obvious to previous generations have been lost due to a simple bias against the old. In this case of trying to discern the meaning of holy, it is a bias against older scholarship. I think instead what scholars, students, and pastors should do instead, is dig through the older layers and recognize all the layers in the process, not just the top soil of our present time. John A. L. Lee's work on lexicography shows how danger it can be to operate without a knowledge of layers and a blind trust in authority rather than trust and verify.
Here is a link to what this older scholar, Tittmann, has to say, so you can dig for yourself a bit: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL23329406M/Remarks_on_the_synonyms_of_the_New_Testament. Check out especially pages 35-46. And also if you really want to get right to the heart of what holy means, you can examine pages 45-46 for his summary.
If I may summarize what he says here, he says: "hagios (Greek) is that which, on account of integrity of mind and morals, is sacred to God and revered." What is most interesting to me in my investigations is his use of "integrity ... of morals". This would fit very well with the idea of "moral wholeness". But perhaps what is more valuable is that he also places purity and being set apart alongside of his "integrity of morals". He says that "ieros" (Greek) has a connection with the idea of "consecrated to, or set apart for God". He also adds that katharis (Greek) is connected to the idea of "pure" as would also "agnos" (Greek).
If you read what he says carefully, then you can see its parallelism with the proposal (by Andrew Murray many years later), that there are other possible words for being set apart rather than the words qadosh (Hebrew) or hagios (Greek). This proposal is worth considering and I must give credit to Richard Trench for his volume on synonyms for alerting me to this once renowned scholar. Its it too bad that often awareness gets buried by generations and time? I rejoice in another discovery and another opportunity to make people aware and bring knowledge to a sometimes darkened world. Digging has its rewards!
In Christ,
Jon
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better through Awarness
For anyone coming to this blog, I am sure the #1 question is: "What is the meaning of holy?". But I think there is also a second question behind the first question: "Why are there different definitions for this central word of the Bible?" For example, this evening I heard a member of the Christian band, Petra, define holy as "totally unique" on YouTube. It is maybe a more contemporary version of Rudolph Otto's definition of "wholly other" from early in the 20th century. So, do I think these definitions are correct? The simple answer is that I think they fall wide of the mark despite their agreement. The lack that I see is a lack of awareness. The more and more I research the topic of the meaning of qadosh (translated into English as holy), the more aware I have become of things that I was not aware of previously. So let me tell you about some of these new discoveries.
The first is that the quality of a Hebrew-English, Aramaic-English, or Greek-English lexicon is not improved by the number of them that agree with each other. Rather this may rather indicate that one source is behind the many lexicons. While the many agreeing is a positive quantity, the many does not change the quality of the first that is copied by all the others. John A. L. Lee (A History of New Testament Lexicology) has probably argued this the best. So Petra's agreement with Rudolph Otto does not mean that the quality of Otto's argument for his meaning of holy is improved.
The second is that the etymology of qadosh in Hebrew is both over-rated and under-rated as a tool to learn the meaning of holy. James Barr, as a scholar, really helped biblical scholarship by making a great argument for the need for the insights of linguistics and semantics. In the case of what is called etymology (the true history of a word), though, he throws the baby out with the bathwater. On the other hand, many scholarly articles begin with etymology and then after downplaying its value don't really downplay it in fact. They do not test its meaning beyond that point, but rather use a plausible meaning from the etymology that is uncertain. The best example of this is in Jo Bailey-Wells' argument that the etymology of qadosh as being "set apart" is no longer supported by recent scholarship and yet she uses that definition in the following discussion without a different kind of test to determine holy's meaning.
The third is that the method needed for determining the meaning of holy goes beyond a lexicon. A lexicon is an enormous project and falls under what is called lexicology. The problem is that when a lexicon is constructed, it cannot look into every word entry with great depth. What is needed for that is what is called a "word study". Here though there is another distinction that must be made. There are small-scale word studies and then there are in-depth word studies. If you look on-line you will find numerous shorter word studies on qadosh (the Hebrew behind the English word holy) like that of the scholar, Dr. Allen P. Ross. I studied under Dr. Ross and he is a top-notch biblical scholar, but the study he offers on-line is not on the depth of word studies like those offered by TDOT (The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament) and NIDOTT (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology (William A. VanGemeren, General Editor). What is needed is a focused study on the set of words that are translated into English as "holy". These books mentioned have studies that have the right depth and length, but also need a solid method added to them. What I now realize is that I need to use the method of doing a word study to really contribute something on the meaning of holy. It will likely be in the 80-100 page category and so be enough in-depth to really contribute something to the discussion. Unfortunately, most lexicons with the exception of Klein's do not mention the quality of the definition that is offered. It would be nice to someday have a letter system like that associated with textual variants that makes explicit a quality rating.
The fourth is that awareness is itself a very important value. Lack of awareness is the primary reason for the need for education. Yet with all the education that is offered, there can still be large gaps in awareness or the need to slow down and really consider what is taught. Many of the things that I was taught at the university level, I did not realize until later what was meant. In other words, I finally became aware of something that I was not aware of previously, though I was already taught the topic. The need to really observe and keep observing as part of inductively studying the Bible was taught to me at the university level and then in Seminary by three great teachers: Tom Stellar, Dr. John S. Piper, and Dr. Daniel P. Fuller. The latter is the one who most applied this principle of observation. I was fortunate to have hung on to old notebooks from my college years, so I could re-read what I read before and have continued observation pay off. I then got the pay off of greater awareness!
Finally, it takes awareness of all four of these to really have a great opportunity to understand the meaning of holy in our English translations. They again are: 1) quantity though it comes before quality, does not replace it when it comes to lexicons, 2) that etymology has value though it must not be allowed to have undue influence on how holy is defined, 3) a word study of some length is what is needed at present to resolve the problem of differing definitions for qadosh, and 4) awareness is itself the value behind each of these things I have learned through "getting an education".
I like to put awareness on the level of the traits of being "ready, willing, and able". I say a person needs to be "ready, willing, able, and aware". If any of these is missing, then a decision is likely to falter in the future. If they are all present, then the future is likely to match with the present. I hope what I have written today has at least raised your awareness about the meaning of holy. I am presently working on sorting out which of three English words best defines holy: 1) pure, 2) set apart, or 3) moral wholeness. Please check back to see my further work on my word study for this incredibly important word. I would also appreciate your prayers that I have ample time and that I use my time well to finish a large word study on qadosh and its translations down to the English language and beyond.
Thank you.
In Christ,
Jon
The first is that the quality of a Hebrew-English, Aramaic-English, or Greek-English lexicon is not improved by the number of them that agree with each other. Rather this may rather indicate that one source is behind the many lexicons. While the many agreeing is a positive quantity, the many does not change the quality of the first that is copied by all the others. John A. L. Lee (A History of New Testament Lexicology) has probably argued this the best. So Petra's agreement with Rudolph Otto does not mean that the quality of Otto's argument for his meaning of holy is improved.
The second is that the etymology of qadosh in Hebrew is both over-rated and under-rated as a tool to learn the meaning of holy. James Barr, as a scholar, really helped biblical scholarship by making a great argument for the need for the insights of linguistics and semantics. In the case of what is called etymology (the true history of a word), though, he throws the baby out with the bathwater. On the other hand, many scholarly articles begin with etymology and then after downplaying its value don't really downplay it in fact. They do not test its meaning beyond that point, but rather use a plausible meaning from the etymology that is uncertain. The best example of this is in Jo Bailey-Wells' argument that the etymology of qadosh as being "set apart" is no longer supported by recent scholarship and yet she uses that definition in the following discussion without a different kind of test to determine holy's meaning.
The third is that the method needed for determining the meaning of holy goes beyond a lexicon. A lexicon is an enormous project and falls under what is called lexicology. The problem is that when a lexicon is constructed, it cannot look into every word entry with great depth. What is needed for that is what is called a "word study". Here though there is another distinction that must be made. There are small-scale word studies and then there are in-depth word studies. If you look on-line you will find numerous shorter word studies on qadosh (the Hebrew behind the English word holy) like that of the scholar, Dr. Allen P. Ross. I studied under Dr. Ross and he is a top-notch biblical scholar, but the study he offers on-line is not on the depth of word studies like those offered by TDOT (The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament) and NIDOTT (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology (William A. VanGemeren, General Editor). What is needed is a focused study on the set of words that are translated into English as "holy". These books mentioned have studies that have the right depth and length, but also need a solid method added to them. What I now realize is that I need to use the method of doing a word study to really contribute something on the meaning of holy. It will likely be in the 80-100 page category and so be enough in-depth to really contribute something to the discussion. Unfortunately, most lexicons with the exception of Klein's do not mention the quality of the definition that is offered. It would be nice to someday have a letter system like that associated with textual variants that makes explicit a quality rating.
The fourth is that awareness is itself a very important value. Lack of awareness is the primary reason for the need for education. Yet with all the education that is offered, there can still be large gaps in awareness or the need to slow down and really consider what is taught. Many of the things that I was taught at the university level, I did not realize until later what was meant. In other words, I finally became aware of something that I was not aware of previously, though I was already taught the topic. The need to really observe and keep observing as part of inductively studying the Bible was taught to me at the university level and then in Seminary by three great teachers: Tom Stellar, Dr. John S. Piper, and Dr. Daniel P. Fuller. The latter is the one who most applied this principle of observation. I was fortunate to have hung on to old notebooks from my college years, so I could re-read what I read before and have continued observation pay off. I then got the pay off of greater awareness!
Finally, it takes awareness of all four of these to really have a great opportunity to understand the meaning of holy in our English translations. They again are: 1) quantity though it comes before quality, does not replace it when it comes to lexicons, 2) that etymology has value though it must not be allowed to have undue influence on how holy is defined, 3) a word study of some length is what is needed at present to resolve the problem of differing definitions for qadosh, and 4) awareness is itself the value behind each of these things I have learned through "getting an education".
I like to put awareness on the level of the traits of being "ready, willing, and able". I say a person needs to be "ready, willing, able, and aware". If any of these is missing, then a decision is likely to falter in the future. If they are all present, then the future is likely to match with the present. I hope what I have written today has at least raised your awareness about the meaning of holy. I am presently working on sorting out which of three English words best defines holy: 1) pure, 2) set apart, or 3) moral wholeness. Please check back to see my further work on my word study for this incredibly important word. I would also appreciate your prayers that I have ample time and that I use my time well to finish a large word study on qadosh and its translations down to the English language and beyond.
Thank you.
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, August 30, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
The top 10 of frequently asked one or two word questions
are: 1) How many?, 2) How much?, 3) Where?, 4) When?, 5) Who?,
6) Whole?, 7) How?, 8) Why? ,
9) What?, and 10) Which?. Using these as the starting point for
questions about the definition of holy, let’s look at the answers to 10
frequently asked questions.
[This summer I have been particularly busy. I apologize for delays in getting things complete. As fall approaches I expect this to change. Please be patient.]
In Christ,
Jon
1)How many definitions
of holy have been proposed (or denied)?
(i.e. quantity)
At one time, I listed somewhere in the neighborhood of 20
proposed definitions for qadosh (Hebrew) or hagios (Greek) usually translated
as holy. Obviously, not all 20 are
right! Many people assume wrongly, there
is only 1 – set apart.
2) How much? Are each of these definitions worth
considering (or not worth considering)? (quality)
The 3 that seem to have the most credibility are: 1) pure,
2) set apart, and 3) moral wholeness.
These are listed in alphabetic order, but there quality can be measured
by the comparative quality of these proposals.
“Set apart” is currently seen as the # 1 proposal.
3) Where? Is the definition of holy to be found (or
lost)? (place)
It should be found in the texts originating out of primarily
two cultures: 1) Hebrew and 2) Greek.
Aramaic is also a source, but there is comparatively less text to
compare.
Some arguments point out that the meaning of the English
word holy does not matter. This is true
in the strictest sense. But there is
also an overstatement of this argument that should not be tolerated regardless
of who makes the argument. The truth is
that holy does have a connection to moral wholeness in the English language,
even if qadosh or hagios may not. The
meaning of holy in English is irrelevant in terms of where the meaning of
qadosh or hagios originated. Where the
meaning of holy as moral wholeness is relevant is in understanding the origin
of the meaning of holy and why it was chosen by early English translators.
When? Is the definition of holy found (or lost)?
(time)
It is important to realize that the time periods of when the
texts containing qadosh and hagios were recorded are primary. Texts that come before or after that time
have less value. A variety of contexts
can matter, but the most immediate in terms of time matter more than those that
come before or those that follow. It is important
to realize also that qadosh precedes hagios in time and that hagios like holy
is a translation of qadosh. This would
also be true for the Aramaic word for qadosh.
Qadosh and its time period must be kept primary.
Who? Is
identified with the definition of holy (or who is not to be identified as holy)?
(identity)
Yahweh and his name are identified in Scripture over and
over as holy. It is said that he is the
only one that is holy. Unfortunately,
this is extended beyond comparison to other gods and it is said humans too are
not holy. The last I checked “saints”
are holy ones and they are human. So
overstretching the comparison with Yahweh to knock human holy ones is not in
agreement with Scripture.
Whole? Of who a person is complete in the definition
of holy (or only a part of who a person is)?
(makeup)
How? Are we able
to determine the definition of holy (or do we not know how to determine its
definition)? (Method)
Why? Work on the definition of holy (or why not
work on it)? (Purpose)
What? Is the
definition of holy (or is not the definition for holy)? (Likeness)
Which? Of the different kinds of definitions for
holy is the right kind (or which is the wrong kind)? (Kinds)
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, May 31, 2013
Holy:Understanding it Better Through Research
I know you have likely visited this entry to find the definition of holy. You are doing research. Others have told you the results of their own research, but now you are doing your own by searching again or "re-searching". All I can say is: "Congratulations!" You are a scholar of the first rank! By searching out the meaning of the meaning of the biblical notion of holy again, you are researching rather than just searching.
To know the meaning or definition of the English word holy, as it is used in translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; you must do some research. It is not a word like the English words dog or cat, where searching or researching is not really necessary even for children. Trying to understand qadosh in Hebrew, qaddiysh in Aramaic, or hagios in Greek is a different story. You have to do at least a little research, just like you might do in buying a car. A little research can lead to big improvements in car buying, but also in understanding the biblical concept often translated into English as holy there can be big improvements in understanding.
You may have read in Leviticus 19:1-2 (based primarily on the NKJV) the following:
And [Yahweh] spoke to Moses, saying,
"Speak to [the whole of] the congregation of the children of Israel
and say to them:
`You shall be holy,
for I [Yahweh] your God am holy.'"
It is obvious that understanding what "holy" means is tremendously important. There are many concepts here that are easily understood through an English translation, but the meaning of holy has been anything but that. Think about it this way. It is obvious the first audience for this passage possessed the meaning of holy. The question is whether English translators also possess the meaning of holy as intended for that first audience.
The important question is whether we possess what Moses and the congregation of the children of Israel possessed in understanding or whether their understanding was ever lost. A great way to think of this is to think of what happens in the case of anything being lost. Here is the usual sequence from possessing to re-possessing an object:
1) possessed
2) lost
3a) search (look)
3b) research (search again and again, etc.)
4) find (or discover)
5) re-possess (possess again)
The main discoveries for scholarly searchers for the biblical notion of holy is understood in three ways: 1) "set apart", 2) "pure", and 3) "(moral) wholeness". This is what your own research would yield through the internet. If you consult English dictionaries for the definition of holy in English, you will also find references to all three of these meanings.
Now let's say you look further in your research. You will probably next consult lexicons. The top three lexicons in this case would be a Hebrew - English lexicon, an Aramaic (Chaldee) - English lexicon, and a Greek - English lexicon. Usually when I consult a few lexicons, the possible alternative meanings for a word increase in number. Ironically, in this case the number of alternatives instead shrinks. In Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, as translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, you and I discover that qadosh means properly "pure, clean" and not set apart or moral wholeness. In the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, as written by Jeff A. Benner, one discovers that it primarily or properly means "set apart". In lexicons since the mid to late 1800s, you will not find the meaning of "(moral) wholeness" listed.
So in my case, I searched beyond the lexicons. I also looked in other scholarly texts like commentaries. There I found that Gordon J. Wenham in his commentary called The Book of Lexiticus does recognize the meaning of wholeness for qadosh. I also found this in other theological texts like Disability in the Hebrew Bible by Saul M. Olyan find the same meaning. They each also seem to recognize pure as part of that larger definition of something or someone being whole. .
Why do we research the meaning of a word or search again? Why do a search at all? Is something lost? Have we not already found what we are looking for?
You were probably like me when I was growing up, in that you and I likely lost a few things in the house or elsewhere. I would usually call out, "Does anybody know where my G.I. Joe is?" After I made no progress and found no answers in my search, then my mother would usually tell me to either, "retrace your steps" or "go look again". In other words, she was asking me to "search again" or to do "research", because I still had not found what I was looking for after consulting other family members. In other words, I was to do "re-search" not in the books, but in the physical spaces where I may have lost my G. I. Joe. Many times I looked and I found him or something else in my own room or right under my nose. It was easy to think someone else took it or moved it, but usually I just lost it.
The same is true in re-search. We need to look again, because we might have lost something in trying to understand the meaning of qadosh, qaddiysh or hagios with the change in place and in time. Space and time do not forbid us recovering something lost, but they do require us to search and sometimes search again.
I saw this for myself in 2004. I found a definition for holy that I had not found previously. I found that qadosh or hagios might mean "(moral) wholeness". Not that much searching later, I found it also right under my nose in the printed sermons of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who I had read extensively during the early 80s. By re-tracing not just my steps but the steps of other Christians, I found a lost meaning that I had no prior knowledge even existed.
These discoveries did not prove that holy means whole, but it did prove there were possible definitions to investigate or research that I and many others had never checked out previously. Like checking out a different room in search for a G. I. Joe, it does not prove that something will be found there. It only proves that we are willing to fully re-trace our steps and take self-responsibility for loss and discovery or recovery. I think researching could be a virtue in this case.
Let me take this one step further. Recently I saw a video where a pastor was interviewing a man for why he did not "love the church" even while they "love Jesus". Here are a collection of some of the man's comments relative to "search again", research, and knowledge:
1) "If you (Christians) believe the Bible, then you should be willing to research (search again)
things".
2) "[Christians] cop out." "[They are] using their faith to be lazy."
3) "Knowledge can't hurt. [Implies Christians act like it can.]
4) "[Christians are] not willing to do the research."
5) "They really know nothing about ... [other alternatives]."
6) "Christians don't do their homework."
7) "[They] know so little about their knowledge claims."
Notice how much of this has to do with knowledge and research. It should cause Christians to pause and reflect. Maybe we should research our pattern of behavior. Are we leaving open a question as to whether we are willing to research something and simply let the evidence speak for itself?
One of the professors at Nashotah House (Seminary), where I am working on my S.T.M. thesis, pointed out to me that good research often means you do a good job of citing where things are found. You make claims, but you tell where you searched and found them. This insight has grown in importance with the knowledge explosion beyond the time of the Reformation, when citing sources was not their strength. It is hard to re-trace their steps for how they arrived as a meaning for holy of "(moral) wholeness". But what we can do is research the steps taken in the last 100 years plus and we can also search again using new exegetical tools that are more rigorous than just the tools of etymology that seem to have had great influence at the time of the Reformation.
I conclude with one final thought One of the things the professor said to me is that with research you just gotta do the work. It comes down to that. There are no shortcuts. In Steve Jobs' (of Apple Computer fame) terms it comes down to not being caught up in great idea like any of the three possible definitions, but being caught up in the craft.
In the specific instance of defining holy, it is crafting a great argument for the meaning of holy based on the best means for doing a word study. It is as important as Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak being able to build working components and a computer. I have only found one great book on the meaning of holy that is a great example of a fully crafted word study on holy. Its one limitation is its reliance on etymology and the testing then of only one of the three possible definitions. It is God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology (Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), by Jo Bailey Wells. It just begins to resemble Jobs and Wozniak's ability to craft a computer.
A word study on qadosh is the thing I need to craft. The weakness I need to replace is that of the excessive usage of etymology. Then when you and I do our research, we can find things for ourselves that tell us what Moses and the children of Israel heard when they heard qadosh. We will be sure we have found what they understood rather than what we understand or we probably understand.
Please do me one favor. I want to focus more time on my research, because as I make more and more discoveries, I get more and more excited to get my research out to my fellow researchers like yourself. Pray that God would grant me more time and more discipline (mainly the latter) to search again for things lost. I hope your reading of this entry helped you find a few lost things. May God help you to find other lost things as well.
In Christ,
Jon
To know the meaning or definition of the English word holy, as it is used in translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; you must do some research. It is not a word like the English words dog or cat, where searching or researching is not really necessary even for children. Trying to understand qadosh in Hebrew, qaddiysh in Aramaic, or hagios in Greek is a different story. You have to do at least a little research, just like you might do in buying a car. A little research can lead to big improvements in car buying, but also in understanding the biblical concept often translated into English as holy there can be big improvements in understanding.
You may have read in Leviticus 19:1-2 (based primarily on the NKJV) the following:
And [Yahweh] spoke to Moses, saying,
"Speak to [the whole of] the congregation of the children of Israel
and say to them:
`You shall be holy,
for I [Yahweh] your God am holy.'"
It is obvious that understanding what "holy" means is tremendously important. There are many concepts here that are easily understood through an English translation, but the meaning of holy has been anything but that. Think about it this way. It is obvious the first audience for this passage possessed the meaning of holy. The question is whether English translators also possess the meaning of holy as intended for that first audience.
The important question is whether we possess what Moses and the congregation of the children of Israel possessed in understanding or whether their understanding was ever lost. A great way to think of this is to think of what happens in the case of anything being lost. Here is the usual sequence from possessing to re-possessing an object:
1) possessed
2) lost
3a) search (look)
3b) research (search again and again, etc.)
4) find (or discover)
5) re-possess (possess again)
The main discoveries for scholarly searchers for the biblical notion of holy is understood in three ways: 1) "set apart", 2) "pure", and 3) "(moral) wholeness". This is what your own research would yield through the internet. If you consult English dictionaries for the definition of holy in English, you will also find references to all three of these meanings.
Now let's say you look further in your research. You will probably next consult lexicons. The top three lexicons in this case would be a Hebrew - English lexicon, an Aramaic (Chaldee) - English lexicon, and a Greek - English lexicon. Usually when I consult a few lexicons, the possible alternative meanings for a word increase in number. Ironically, in this case the number of alternatives instead shrinks. In Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, as translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, you and I discover that qadosh means properly "pure, clean" and not set apart or moral wholeness. In the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, as written by Jeff A. Benner, one discovers that it primarily or properly means "set apart". In lexicons since the mid to late 1800s, you will not find the meaning of "(moral) wholeness" listed.
So in my case, I searched beyond the lexicons. I also looked in other scholarly texts like commentaries. There I found that Gordon J. Wenham in his commentary called The Book of Lexiticus does recognize the meaning of wholeness for qadosh. I also found this in other theological texts like Disability in the Hebrew Bible by Saul M. Olyan find the same meaning. They each also seem to recognize pure as part of that larger definition of something or someone being whole. .
Why do we research the meaning of a word or search again? Why do a search at all? Is something lost? Have we not already found what we are looking for?
You were probably like me when I was growing up, in that you and I likely lost a few things in the house or elsewhere. I would usually call out, "Does anybody know where my G.I. Joe is?" After I made no progress and found no answers in my search, then my mother would usually tell me to either, "retrace your steps" or "go look again". In other words, she was asking me to "search again" or to do "research", because I still had not found what I was looking for after consulting other family members. In other words, I was to do "re-search" not in the books, but in the physical spaces where I may have lost my G. I. Joe. Many times I looked and I found him or something else in my own room or right under my nose. It was easy to think someone else took it or moved it, but usually I just lost it.
The same is true in re-search. We need to look again, because we might have lost something in trying to understand the meaning of qadosh, qaddiysh or hagios with the change in place and in time. Space and time do not forbid us recovering something lost, but they do require us to search and sometimes search again.
I saw this for myself in 2004. I found a definition for holy that I had not found previously. I found that qadosh or hagios might mean "(moral) wholeness". Not that much searching later, I found it also right under my nose in the printed sermons of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who I had read extensively during the early 80s. By re-tracing not just my steps but the steps of other Christians, I found a lost meaning that I had no prior knowledge even existed.
These discoveries did not prove that holy means whole, but it did prove there were possible definitions to investigate or research that I and many others had never checked out previously. Like checking out a different room in search for a G. I. Joe, it does not prove that something will be found there. It only proves that we are willing to fully re-trace our steps and take self-responsibility for loss and discovery or recovery. I think researching could be a virtue in this case.
Let me take this one step further. Recently I saw a video where a pastor was interviewing a man for why he did not "love the church" even while they "love Jesus". Here are a collection of some of the man's comments relative to "search again", research, and knowledge:
1) "If you (Christians) believe the Bible, then you should be willing to research (search again)
things".
2) "[Christians] cop out." "[They are] using their faith to be lazy."
3) "Knowledge can't hurt. [Implies Christians act like it can.]
4) "[Christians are] not willing to do the research."
5) "They really know nothing about ... [other alternatives]."
6) "Christians don't do their homework."
7) "[They] know so little about their knowledge claims."
Notice how much of this has to do with knowledge and research. It should cause Christians to pause and reflect. Maybe we should research our pattern of behavior. Are we leaving open a question as to whether we are willing to research something and simply let the evidence speak for itself?
One of the professors at Nashotah House (Seminary), where I am working on my S.T.M. thesis, pointed out to me that good research often means you do a good job of citing where things are found. You make claims, but you tell where you searched and found them. This insight has grown in importance with the knowledge explosion beyond the time of the Reformation, when citing sources was not their strength. It is hard to re-trace their steps for how they arrived as a meaning for holy of "(moral) wholeness". But what we can do is research the steps taken in the last 100 years plus and we can also search again using new exegetical tools that are more rigorous than just the tools of etymology that seem to have had great influence at the time of the Reformation.
I conclude with one final thought One of the things the professor said to me is that with research you just gotta do the work. It comes down to that. There are no shortcuts. In Steve Jobs' (of Apple Computer fame) terms it comes down to not being caught up in great idea like any of the three possible definitions, but being caught up in the craft.
In the specific instance of defining holy, it is crafting a great argument for the meaning of holy based on the best means for doing a word study. It is as important as Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak being able to build working components and a computer. I have only found one great book on the meaning of holy that is a great example of a fully crafted word study on holy. Its one limitation is its reliance on etymology and the testing then of only one of the three possible definitions. It is God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology (Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), by Jo Bailey Wells. It just begins to resemble Jobs and Wozniak's ability to craft a computer.
A word study on qadosh is the thing I need to craft. The weakness I need to replace is that of the excessive usage of etymology. Then when you and I do our research, we can find things for ourselves that tell us what Moses and the children of Israel heard when they heard qadosh. We will be sure we have found what they understood rather than what we understand or we probably understand.
Please do me one favor. I want to focus more time on my research, because as I make more and more discoveries, I get more and more excited to get my research out to my fellow researchers like yourself. Pray that God would grant me more time and more discipline (mainly the latter) to search again for things lost. I hope your reading of this entry helped you find a few lost things. May God help you to find other lost things as well.
In Christ,
Jon
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better Through Two Recent Books
If you are visiting this blog for the meaning of holy, it is a shame you and I cannot enter into a face to face conversation. I am discovering relevant new material everyday. It is impossible for me to express something about every discovery I make. But every once in a while, I make discoveries that may tip the balance in understanding the meaning of holy.
Whatever background you have grown up in, whether in church or synagogue, you have not seen or heard of some of the most profound books on the topic of the meaning of holy and on the topic of biblical interpretation. The volume of them is beyond one person's reach.
The issue is that holy or sanctification could mean one of the following definitions: 1) pure/purity, 2) set apart/separate, or 3) whole. I want to introduce two books that advance the discussion considerably whatever position or positions you hold.
The first is: Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences. It is written by Saul M. Olyan. If you want to learn more about the book itself, click on:
http://www.amazon.com/Disability-Hebrew-Bible-Interpreting-Differences/dp/0521888077.
The reason I recommend this book is because it touches by implication on the issue of holy means whole. It has a great deal to say on the topic of holiness along that line. He also expands on the work of the anthropologist Mary Douglas who says the same about the meaning of holy.
The second is: Conceptualizing Words for "God" Within the Pentateuch: A Cognitive-Semantic Investigation in Literary Context. The author is Terrance R. Wardlaw. If you want to learn more about the book itself, click on:
http://www.amazon.com/Conceptualizing-Words-within-Pentateuch-Cognitive-Semantic/dp/0567027376/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362074634&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=conceptualizing+words+for+%22god%22+within+the+penteteuch.
I know the book looks daunting. So does the link look that way as well! What I will say is that its topic is great, since it is A1 on the list of high priorities in dealing with God's name. It ranks first before the importance of this blog. But my interest in the book is that the outline the author uses nearly mirrors the argument that I must make for the meaning of holy. I won't have to write quite so densely, but the use of linguistics in the book for finding meaning in the biblical text is highly important. It puts a method out there that is ready to use for good biblical exegesis.
So I recommend both. One for its development of the argument for the idea that holy means whole. The other for its development of exegetical or interpretative method. They are both raising the bar for those who want to really know the meaning of holy. Thank you for taking time to read this entry. It is my hope that it benefitted you today.
In Christ,
Jon
Whatever background you have grown up in, whether in church or synagogue, you have not seen or heard of some of the most profound books on the topic of the meaning of holy and on the topic of biblical interpretation. The volume of them is beyond one person's reach.
The issue is that holy or sanctification could mean one of the following definitions: 1) pure/purity, 2) set apart/separate, or 3) whole. I want to introduce two books that advance the discussion considerably whatever position or positions you hold.
The first is: Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences. It is written by Saul M. Olyan. If you want to learn more about the book itself, click on:
http://www.amazon.com/Disability-Hebrew-Bible-Interpreting-Differences/dp/0521888077.
The reason I recommend this book is because it touches by implication on the issue of holy means whole. It has a great deal to say on the topic of holiness along that line. He also expands on the work of the anthropologist Mary Douglas who says the same about the meaning of holy.
The second is: Conceptualizing Words for "God" Within the Pentateuch: A Cognitive-Semantic Investigation in Literary Context. The author is Terrance R. Wardlaw. If you want to learn more about the book itself, click on:
http://www.amazon.com/Conceptualizing-Words-within-Pentateuch-Cognitive-Semantic/dp/0567027376/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362074634&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=conceptualizing+words+for+%22god%22+within+the+penteteuch.
I know the book looks daunting. So does the link look that way as well! What I will say is that its topic is great, since it is A1 on the list of high priorities in dealing with God's name. It ranks first before the importance of this blog. But my interest in the book is that the outline the author uses nearly mirrors the argument that I must make for the meaning of holy. I won't have to write quite so densely, but the use of linguistics in the book for finding meaning in the biblical text is highly important. It puts a method out there that is ready to use for good biblical exegesis.
So I recommend both. One for its development of the argument for the idea that holy means whole. The other for its development of exegetical or interpretative method. They are both raising the bar for those who want to really know the meaning of holy. Thank you for taking time to read this entry. It is my hope that it benefitted you today.
In Christ,
Jon
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Holy: Understanding it Better on the Map (the Bible)
So you are exploring the meaning of holy as it is found in the Bible. That is wonderful. It is extremely important, as is pointed out by those famous words in Isaiah: "Holy, holy, holy ...." Perhaps the best way to think of words is to think of them as tools to map out the territory. In tandem, the territory equals real life. Imagine having to go to new locations all the time with no map let alone without your GPS! Worse yet, let's say your map was dated a bit and MapQuest did not show the street that you were looking for but instead a close equivalent! I know the experience with MapQuest personally. It can be frustrating, because it was supposed to make the trip easier rather than more difficult. If we misunderstand the meaning of holy, then frustration and difficulty will be the outcome. That is why the meaning of holy is not only important, but also relevant. What if we are losing our way? Let's look at the maps that are available for finding your destination.
Well, there are three maps out there that have been used for the last 500 plus years. The first map put in the bin historically grew out of the Protestant Reformation. The definition of holy on that map is that holy means morally whole, but there is also a secondary definition. The primary (or broad) definition is moral wholeness. The secondary (narrow) definition is set apart. The second map to be put in the bin historically was made mostly by Puritans. The definition of holy on that map is pure. The third map was made popular at the end of the 1800s and became more popular during the 1900s (20th century). The definition of holy on that map is set apart. This map also remains the most popular at the present moment. That is what you find in most of the books and on most of the internet as you search. There are other maps available with other definitions, but I have given you only the top three to simplify your decision-making.
Understanding the Bible correctly is very important, when you consider that the effect of errant maps. You can get lost, frustrated, or arrive late. It is important to know the implications or effects isn't it? This is the "why" behind my blog. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that even the best of us will face affliction. Life is difficult enough without adding to the territory of life a bad map!
So please know that these three maps are out there. I am presently testing each one for accuracy. The one that I have tested the most experientially since 2004 is the idea that holy means whole. Before that and from my childhood, I was given the map that said holy means set apart. So I was unintentionally testing that option the entire time. I guess that I also tested the idea that holy means pure in my first 3 years of college. I am also testing these three maps through writing a scholarly paper, where I will be using a linguistic and grammatical synthesis as my method.
Please pray that God would grant me more resources to finish this task yet this spring (before May). Then I will announce to everyone the results of that work. Don't threw out any of the above maps away quite yet. There are elements of truth in each one. I'll let you know when you can settle in with the best one or a better replacement than any of the three. Do wisely as the ancient Jewish copyists did. Place one definition as central in your life and keep the other two in your life's margin. Thank you for reading this post.
In Christ,
Jon
Well, there are three maps out there that have been used for the last 500 plus years. The first map put in the bin historically grew out of the Protestant Reformation. The definition of holy on that map is that holy means morally whole, but there is also a secondary definition. The primary (or broad) definition is moral wholeness. The secondary (narrow) definition is set apart. The second map to be put in the bin historically was made mostly by Puritans. The definition of holy on that map is pure. The third map was made popular at the end of the 1800s and became more popular during the 1900s (20th century). The definition of holy on that map is set apart. This map also remains the most popular at the present moment. That is what you find in most of the books and on most of the internet as you search. There are other maps available with other definitions, but I have given you only the top three to simplify your decision-making.
Understanding the Bible correctly is very important, when you consider that the effect of errant maps. You can get lost, frustrated, or arrive late. It is important to know the implications or effects isn't it? This is the "why" behind my blog. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that even the best of us will face affliction. Life is difficult enough without adding to the territory of life a bad map!
So please know that these three maps are out there. I am presently testing each one for accuracy. The one that I have tested the most experientially since 2004 is the idea that holy means whole. Before that and from my childhood, I was given the map that said holy means set apart. So I was unintentionally testing that option the entire time. I guess that I also tested the idea that holy means pure in my first 3 years of college. I am also testing these three maps through writing a scholarly paper, where I will be using a linguistic and grammatical synthesis as my method.
Please pray that God would grant me more resources to finish this task yet this spring (before May). Then I will announce to everyone the results of that work. Don't threw out any of the above maps away quite yet. There are elements of truth in each one. I'll let you know when you can settle in with the best one or a better replacement than any of the three. Do wisely as the ancient Jewish copyists did. Place one definition as central in your life and keep the other two in your life's margin. Thank you for reading this post.
In Christ,
Jon
Friday, February 22, 2013
Holy: Understandin the SAFEty of Each Definition
In my previous entry, I discussed an analogy for rating the possible biblical definitions of holy. The top three candidates (in alphabetical order to avoid bias) are: 1) pure, 2) set apart, and 3) whole. I now want to also discuss each definition from the standpoint of the SAFEty of each definition. I want to use safe in two senses. First, for its usual meaning as in safe versus dangerous option and then also as an acronym for how safety is produced in the case of definitions.
If I were to suggest that I could help you be healthy, then I would have four goals for your physical health. They are:
1) Stable
2) Aware
3) Flexible
4) Energetic
The first letter of each is where the acronym SAFE comes from as you can now easily see. In the case of a healthy body it is likely that no one would argue with the value of each of these outcomes. Well, let's see how that works out when comparing the 3 most likely candidates for the meaning of holiness or sanctification.
First, I want to re-arrange this list to point out how I see each of these on the most basic level of the kinds of different meanings. Those classes of meaning are: 1) whole (I will not comment on this, but assume it as a combination of the other four), 2) amount, 3) relationship, 4) action, and 5) thing. (If you want to understand each of these better, please see my communication basics blog or search on-line for the TEAR method made popular by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), Dr. Eugene Albert Nida of the United Bible Societies, or by Wycliffe Bible Translators.)
1) Stable - I see this as related to amount. An ankle for example you want to have a certain range of motion, but also not too much or too little. The first suggests a sprain or tear and the second suggests an ankle that is now supported by a brace or by the presence of inflammation that holds an injured joint in a condition of rigidity. Neither a sprain nor rigidity is helpful.
2) Flexible - I see this as related to relationship. Every professional athlete understands the need for stretching. It is not just important that joints have a range of motion, but also that muscles not be bound too tight and that they maintain some flexibility. Now here again, flexibility can be overly pursued at the expense of muscle development or muscle development can be pursued with a lack of flexibility. For movement from one place to another and at all speeds that means the changing of one's relationship to other objects. Let's not over-pursue strength or flexibility, so we can move from one position to another in a way that is helpful.
3) Energetic - I see this as related to action. Professional athletes know the importance of healthy carbs for performance. Their bodies need fuel to play or compete at the highest level. We can overdo it with carbs and leave our body in a state of excess energy which goes to waste in the form of excess fat. The body also needs protein to energize the building of muscle. In an anabolic state muscle can grow effectively without robbing other muscles. In a catabolic state the body feeds on other muscle to get the muscle building capability it needs elsewhere (this is not good). We can also fall into a deficit state during competition, because of all the demands for energy that our body must meet. Let's not be guilty of excessive carbs or a lack of sugars to energize or power our bodies.
4) Aware - I see this as related to thing. My reasoning is this. The athlete at any level must know or be aware of the game they are playing. The rules of soccer and the rules of basketball are different. In one you use your hands primarily and in the other you use your feet primarily. That also means that being aware of how to kick a ball into a net may not be very helpful for sinking a ball through a hoop and net in basketball. But also there are fundamentals that are helpful. Working hard, playing as a teammate rather than a ball hog, etc. Let's not then assume that all of our awareness is helpful for a different kind of thing or on the other hand that none of it is helpful. Both of these views show a lack of awareness.
I've laid out each of these analogies, as I have, in order to now speak to the issue of the three major options for defining holy. Let's look at each in the same order
1) Stable as an amount - In our day, it is clear that the last 100 years have been predominately controlled by the idea that holy in the Bible means "set apart". It has been the one option! Please keep in mind that this is only the last 100 years and not for all time (it is found in parts of the Rabbinic tradition as well). Before that and for at least 400 years (I'm still researching the prior 1500 years), the predominate definition was "whole" and "set apart" was seen as the secondary definition of holy in Protestant and Christian circles. "Pure" was also in the same time period in Reformed, Presbyterian, or Puritan theology (but not always, including Calvin and Edwards), more than in any other denominational tradition. The amount of time and the amount of people who held these definitions teaches an interesting lesson. If we are to measure each in terms of their stability and hold on people's interpretations, the new order would be historically from most stable to least stable based on Protestant history): 1) whole, 2) set apart, and 3) pure. Remember this is only a measure of stability in terms of amount of adherents and staying power (both forms of stability). We cannot from this alone say that one definition is safer than another as far as likelihood of being the right or justified definition. What it does do is put our judgment into a right framework. Also we must avoid either too great of a range of motion (likely the case with set apart in liberal circles) or the rigidity of range of motion to protect a supposed sacred position (likely the case of conservatives since the late 1800s related to the infamous "Downgrade Controversy".)
2) Flexibility as a relationship - In our day, set apart is usually the meaning giving to holy without much give as to a secondary meaning. Many other words are used also as words to define holy like consecrate, sanctify, separate, hallow, etc. depending on the context. Normally, there are 5 major contexts including holy persons (names), holy things (temple), holy actions (sanctify), holy places (sanctuary, holy of holies), holy amounts (holier). So this definition does show ample flexibility. Likewise holy defined as whole had flexibility, even to the point of a secondary definition depending on the context. There was a broad definition of holy that applied to contexts in which both sanctification and justification appeared (Lutherans primarily promoted this view). But there was also a narrow definition that applied when there was not a context of justification. I find this flexibility very awkward and it is likely a flaw in understanding, since it is hard to see how the core idea of whole is flexible enough based on context to mean set apart. A flexibility based on context would have to be constructed differently for whole to be a possible definition for holy. This can be improved. Purity has flexibility much like set apart, so I will not say too much on that. One thing about context though is very important. This definition relies heavily on the presence of the meaning of pure in other words in the context of the biblical words usually translated as holy. So I would conclude that whole as a definition has the most struggles with context in the older 500 year tradition, but this may be amendable, so that it can be considered along with the other 2 options as flexible in context. Remember we are looking for a core definition that can be flexible when needed, but only based on context (not on arbitrary ideas).
3) Energetic as an action - In our present time, set apart is a double-edged sword, when it comes to energy. There is no question that this definition has a lot of energy behind it in its research and in its proclamation both from the pulpit and from books in the last 100 years. For many evangelicals, this kind of holiness is needed for revival. The other side of that sword is that it has had ample time and investment (including money) to where it should have produced results by now. It by far dominates the lives of Christian believers around the globe as their paradigm and perception. The question arises:"W hat would happen on an energy level were the other options given the same resources and energy?" Let's say for example, that holy means moral wholeness. During past revivals from Luther to Spurgeon, this was the predominant definition (with set apart secondary) and we see revivals of historic and classical proportions. Purity on its side has set off smaller revivals like that among the Puritans in particular. It never had the larger scale effect, but in its narrow sphere it energized believers. The question is how much time will be committed to set apart to see a revival come again or rather should more time be dedicated to it? Should we be considering other options for an energetic revival or reformation?
4) Awareness as a thing - Maybe, it would be better to say awareness of things (or awareness of possible definitions). I grew up with almost no awareness of what holy meant as a young Christian. I do recall at least one instance of being bored as the pastor droned on and on about being holy and I had no idea what he meant. I wasn't usually bored in church, but when you have no idea what they are talking about, it is hard not to be bored. I also really had no awareness of moral wholeness as a definition (the combining of righteous and just, true and humble, love and perfect, and goodness and maturity). I also had no awareness of the idea that hesed (Hebrew for steadfast kindness) might also be a rich form of whole kindness (the combining of mercy, grace, compassion and slowness to anger - see Exodus 34, etc.). That awareness began for me in 2004 with my eyes opening to qadosh in Strong's dictionary and in finding many advocates on the internet (both past and present). Set apart I think was a given in my Christian experience, though the connection with holiness was not real clear. I grew up in an occasional fundamentalist atmosphere that certainly pursued being "set apart" from sinners. Some adults around me were among those who lived by the banner of "come out and be separate", which was the banner of the Downgrade Controversy in the late 1800s. This view is also supported in the older Jewish Rabbinic traditions supported by Rashi. I will not say that all Jews agreed with this definition, since some have protested and presented other views. Purity was in my awareness, once I hit college. It was then that I was introduced to the Puritan tradition and to theologians like Charles Hodge (his father by the way, believed holy meant moral wholeness while Charles thought it meant pure). One of the major reasons for my blog in the beginning was just to create awareness that there are two (later three) major options, not just one and also to diminish the excessive number of possible definitions and calm people's minds about the other 17 or more options (you can see all the other options I found in one of my entries in either 2011 or 2012).
So now that I have covered the SAFEty of each option, I hope you will consider the safety of your choice for the definition of holy. I have done my very best to try to be as fair as I could be to each one. I am currently working on a paper on the meaning of holy, beginning with ancient Hebrew all the way up to its translation of hagios in the Septuagint and in the New Testament. My goal is to make the choice of a definition among the top 3 options safer in both senses that I started with in the beginning of this blog entry. May you feel safer already and may God grant me success in making the choice for the meaning of holy even safer! Thank you so much for reading my humble views on the meaning of holy.
In Christ,
Jon
If I were to suggest that I could help you be healthy, then I would have four goals for your physical health. They are:
1) Stable
2) Aware
3) Flexible
4) Energetic
The first letter of each is where the acronym SAFE comes from as you can now easily see. In the case of a healthy body it is likely that no one would argue with the value of each of these outcomes. Well, let's see how that works out when comparing the 3 most likely candidates for the meaning of holiness or sanctification.
First, I want to re-arrange this list to point out how I see each of these on the most basic level of the kinds of different meanings. Those classes of meaning are: 1) whole (I will not comment on this, but assume it as a combination of the other four), 2) amount, 3) relationship, 4) action, and 5) thing. (If you want to understand each of these better, please see my communication basics blog or search on-line for the TEAR method made popular by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), Dr. Eugene Albert Nida of the United Bible Societies, or by Wycliffe Bible Translators.)
1) Stable - I see this as related to amount. An ankle for example you want to have a certain range of motion, but also not too much or too little. The first suggests a sprain or tear and the second suggests an ankle that is now supported by a brace or by the presence of inflammation that holds an injured joint in a condition of rigidity. Neither a sprain nor rigidity is helpful.
2) Flexible - I see this as related to relationship. Every professional athlete understands the need for stretching. It is not just important that joints have a range of motion, but also that muscles not be bound too tight and that they maintain some flexibility. Now here again, flexibility can be overly pursued at the expense of muscle development or muscle development can be pursued with a lack of flexibility. For movement from one place to another and at all speeds that means the changing of one's relationship to other objects. Let's not over-pursue strength or flexibility, so we can move from one position to another in a way that is helpful.
3) Energetic - I see this as related to action. Professional athletes know the importance of healthy carbs for performance. Their bodies need fuel to play or compete at the highest level. We can overdo it with carbs and leave our body in a state of excess energy which goes to waste in the form of excess fat. The body also needs protein to energize the building of muscle. In an anabolic state muscle can grow effectively without robbing other muscles. In a catabolic state the body feeds on other muscle to get the muscle building capability it needs elsewhere (this is not good). We can also fall into a deficit state during competition, because of all the demands for energy that our body must meet. Let's not be guilty of excessive carbs or a lack of sugars to energize or power our bodies.
4) Aware - I see this as related to thing. My reasoning is this. The athlete at any level must know or be aware of the game they are playing. The rules of soccer and the rules of basketball are different. In one you use your hands primarily and in the other you use your feet primarily. That also means that being aware of how to kick a ball into a net may not be very helpful for sinking a ball through a hoop and net in basketball. But also there are fundamentals that are helpful. Working hard, playing as a teammate rather than a ball hog, etc. Let's not then assume that all of our awareness is helpful for a different kind of thing or on the other hand that none of it is helpful. Both of these views show a lack of awareness.
I've laid out each of these analogies, as I have, in order to now speak to the issue of the three major options for defining holy. Let's look at each in the same order
1) Stable as an amount - In our day, it is clear that the last 100 years have been predominately controlled by the idea that holy in the Bible means "set apart". It has been the one option! Please keep in mind that this is only the last 100 years and not for all time (it is found in parts of the Rabbinic tradition as well). Before that and for at least 400 years (I'm still researching the prior 1500 years), the predominate definition was "whole" and "set apart" was seen as the secondary definition of holy in Protestant and Christian circles. "Pure" was also in the same time period in Reformed, Presbyterian, or Puritan theology (but not always, including Calvin and Edwards), more than in any other denominational tradition. The amount of time and the amount of people who held these definitions teaches an interesting lesson. If we are to measure each in terms of their stability and hold on people's interpretations, the new order would be historically from most stable to least stable based on Protestant history): 1) whole, 2) set apart, and 3) pure. Remember this is only a measure of stability in terms of amount of adherents and staying power (both forms of stability). We cannot from this alone say that one definition is safer than another as far as likelihood of being the right or justified definition. What it does do is put our judgment into a right framework. Also we must avoid either too great of a range of motion (likely the case with set apart in liberal circles) or the rigidity of range of motion to protect a supposed sacred position (likely the case of conservatives since the late 1800s related to the infamous "Downgrade Controversy".)
2) Flexibility as a relationship - In our day, set apart is usually the meaning giving to holy without much give as to a secondary meaning. Many other words are used also as words to define holy like consecrate, sanctify, separate, hallow, etc. depending on the context. Normally, there are 5 major contexts including holy persons (names), holy things (temple), holy actions (sanctify), holy places (sanctuary, holy of holies), holy amounts (holier). So this definition does show ample flexibility. Likewise holy defined as whole had flexibility, even to the point of a secondary definition depending on the context. There was a broad definition of holy that applied to contexts in which both sanctification and justification appeared (Lutherans primarily promoted this view). But there was also a narrow definition that applied when there was not a context of justification. I find this flexibility very awkward and it is likely a flaw in understanding, since it is hard to see how the core idea of whole is flexible enough based on context to mean set apart. A flexibility based on context would have to be constructed differently for whole to be a possible definition for holy. This can be improved. Purity has flexibility much like set apart, so I will not say too much on that. One thing about context though is very important. This definition relies heavily on the presence of the meaning of pure in other words in the context of the biblical words usually translated as holy. So I would conclude that whole as a definition has the most struggles with context in the older 500 year tradition, but this may be amendable, so that it can be considered along with the other 2 options as flexible in context. Remember we are looking for a core definition that can be flexible when needed, but only based on context (not on arbitrary ideas).
3) Energetic as an action - In our present time, set apart is a double-edged sword, when it comes to energy. There is no question that this definition has a lot of energy behind it in its research and in its proclamation both from the pulpit and from books in the last 100 years. For many evangelicals, this kind of holiness is needed for revival. The other side of that sword is that it has had ample time and investment (including money) to where it should have produced results by now. It by far dominates the lives of Christian believers around the globe as their paradigm and perception. The question arises:"W hat would happen on an energy level were the other options given the same resources and energy?" Let's say for example, that holy means moral wholeness. During past revivals from Luther to Spurgeon, this was the predominant definition (with set apart secondary) and we see revivals of historic and classical proportions. Purity on its side has set off smaller revivals like that among the Puritans in particular. It never had the larger scale effect, but in its narrow sphere it energized believers. The question is how much time will be committed to set apart to see a revival come again or rather should more time be dedicated to it? Should we be considering other options for an energetic revival or reformation?
4) Awareness as a thing - Maybe, it would be better to say awareness of things (or awareness of possible definitions). I grew up with almost no awareness of what holy meant as a young Christian. I do recall at least one instance of being bored as the pastor droned on and on about being holy and I had no idea what he meant. I wasn't usually bored in church, but when you have no idea what they are talking about, it is hard not to be bored. I also really had no awareness of moral wholeness as a definition (the combining of righteous and just, true and humble, love and perfect, and goodness and maturity). I also had no awareness of the idea that hesed (Hebrew for steadfast kindness) might also be a rich form of whole kindness (the combining of mercy, grace, compassion and slowness to anger - see Exodus 34, etc.). That awareness began for me in 2004 with my eyes opening to qadosh in Strong's dictionary and in finding many advocates on the internet (both past and present). Set apart I think was a given in my Christian experience, though the connection with holiness was not real clear. I grew up in an occasional fundamentalist atmosphere that certainly pursued being "set apart" from sinners. Some adults around me were among those who lived by the banner of "come out and be separate", which was the banner of the Downgrade Controversy in the late 1800s. This view is also supported in the older Jewish Rabbinic traditions supported by Rashi. I will not say that all Jews agreed with this definition, since some have protested and presented other views. Purity was in my awareness, once I hit college. It was then that I was introduced to the Puritan tradition and to theologians like Charles Hodge (his father by the way, believed holy meant moral wholeness while Charles thought it meant pure). One of the major reasons for my blog in the beginning was just to create awareness that there are two (later three) major options, not just one and also to diminish the excessive number of possible definitions and calm people's minds about the other 17 or more options (you can see all the other options I found in one of my entries in either 2011 or 2012).
So now that I have covered the SAFEty of each option, I hope you will consider the safety of your choice for the definition of holy. I have done my very best to try to be as fair as I could be to each one. I am currently working on a paper on the meaning of holy, beginning with ancient Hebrew all the way up to its translation of hagios in the Septuagint and in the New Testament. My goal is to make the choice of a definition among the top 3 options safer in both senses that I started with in the beginning of this blog entry. May you feel safer already and may God grant me success in making the choice for the meaning of holy even safer! Thank you so much for reading my humble views on the meaning of holy.
In Christ,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
